The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at its adoption, 35 years old, and 14 years a resident (Article II, Section 1).
Congress possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to create "an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8). From this power and only this power does Congress have authority over U.S. citizenship.
The Constitution does not delegate Congress the power over who is or who is not a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father.
At birth Ted Cruz became a citizen of the United States by fulfilling an Act of Congress (The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952), an Act that Congress enacted by expressing its power to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization. If Congress had not enacted these naturalization rules, Ted Cruz would not of been born a citizen of the United States.
As far as the Constitution is concerned Ted Cruz is a citizen of the United States by Naturalization.
Therefore, Ted Cruz is not a Constitutional natural born citizen, and since he was not a citizen of the United States when the Constitution was adopted, Ted Cruz is ineligible to be President.
It is not a defense to say that Congress used its Naturalization power to make Cruz a "natural born citizen" at birth. Congress cannot amend the Constitution via legislation. The Constitution can only be amended through the Article V Constitutional Amendment process.
But don't take my word for it. The Supreme Court has already said as much in a 1961 case called Montana v. Kennedy.
>>59965099 No since he is the butt of a barrage of attacks from Rubio, Rand, and Christie Seems as if Ted is weathering the attacks fairly well.
>>59966559 >This. He spent so much time trying not to piss off Trump that he pissed off a lot of the other candidates Ted doesn't attack other candidates. He's running a candidacy abiding by Reagan's 11th comandment: save your attacks for Democrats, not other Republicans.
Cruz is on the receiving end of attacks (by others who don't care to follow a proven path of victory) because of his surging poll numbers.
Hes won the megachurch vote from Rick "squeaky clean" santorum, but i dunno how he is getting so much otherwise. Maybe he is getting the anti-trump votes from the voters who were previously supporting losers like Jeb! or the dropped out candidates
>>59967186 Cruz is not low energy and he is not like Romney since Cruz is one of the more charismatice candidates in the race behind Sanders, Paul, and Trump and Romney was a mormon who was very out of touch while Cruz is trying to emulate Obama's 2008 campaign but you are right that he is 2 faced
>>59967521 >Romney was a mormon who was very out of touch cannot be emphasized enough. >while Cruz is trying to emulate Obama's 2008 campaign Effectively, too. >but you are right that he is 2 faced In what sense? In the sense that certain Trumpfags thought (because they kept telling it to each other) that Cruz was gunning for VP and not one of Trump's main competitors?
>>59967278 >Hes won the megachurch vote from Rick "squeaky clean" santorum, but i dunno how he is getting so much otherwise. He's the conservative candidate of choice, objectively the best fighter on those issues, in a time period in which that wing is in the ascendency. >Maybe he is getting the anti-trump votes from the voters who were previously supporting losers like Jeb! or the dropped out candidates A benefit of running a positive campaign is that supporters of failed candidates will flock to you, though Jeb's support is likely leaking to Rubio/Christie.
>>59968233 >In what sense? In the sense that certain Trumpfags thought (because they kept telling it to each other) that Cruz was gunning for VP and not one of Trump's main competitors? Well its that he is claiming he is for better trade deals yet his wife wrote NAFTA and he voted for the fast track of the TPP and while he said he is going to vote against it he still is partially responsible for it still passing but on the VP thing I think he is not gunning for a VP position but realistically a cabinet position if he is not the nominee
>>59968690 >yet his wife wrote NAFTA Cruz's wife is 43. When NAFTA was passed in 1994 she was 21 years old. Which is not to mention that it was obviously crafted before that. Do the math.
>and he voted for the fast track of the TPP Ted has never been on record as being in support of TPP. What you are referring to is something different.
>and while he said he is going to vote against it he still is partially responsible for it still passing TPP hasn't passed, and it may not. What some TPP opponents wanted to do would have screwed with the way all treaties are negotiated as a mechanism to defeat one trade pact.
>but on the VP thing I think he is not gunning for a VP position but realistically a cabinet position if he is not the nominee That depends on who has delegates. If Trump and Cruz has enough, they swing a deal. If Rubio or Christie is in the mix, they get in on that deal.
>>59968876 That depends entirely on if Christie can leach off of Rubio's support. I expect Ted to do just alright. If Christie and Rubio split, Ted will probably have taken a solid second. So it'll be a win and a good challenge in a state that isn't supposed to be strong for Cruz going into SC.
>>59968922 >counting out Rubio Big mistake. There is going to be huge pressure put on the establishment candidates to get behind one guy to mount an effective challenge Cruz/Trump. All indications are that its going to be Marco.
>>59971023 >But they all have way too much pride to do it early. That's my hope, that Christie and Rubio fight it out for a couple (even better, a few) states. But it's still just a hope at this point.
>I mean, can you imagine the phone call between Yeb and Rance Priebus? >>"MUH POLL NUMBERS DON'T MATTER" kek. Seriously though, my theory is that Jeb succumbs to the meme and goes to the dark side, becoming the chaos candidate himself, existing only as a conduit to allow his PAC money to run negative ads.
There was a deadline that PACs could have come off a candidate and asked for a refund, but that time has already passed.
>>59971990 >All he does is take credit for Rand and Rona ideas That's just a dumb retort of someone who can't win people to their candidacies. As if Rand or Ron had sole proprietorship of "standing for the constitution."
If Bush pulls out he can easily just point all his Super PACs in the direction of Rubio, which is what I've figured was his game from the get-go (because seriously another bush was ham fisted even before his poll numbers tanked). he doesn't have much but what he does have is a FUCKTON of money
hell, he could run his own super PAC if he wanted to and swing the primaries for whomever he wants
he's polling at 3% nationally, it'll happen soon. I think after New Hampshire
>>59972797 >PACs can buy ads for whoever they want though As a matter of campaign financing law, PACs must file as being associated with a candidate (or against a particular candidate, in some cases). Also by law PAC ads can't be direct endorsements, though who they support is obviously implied through visuals.
That how when you go to opensecrets you can see who's lined up behind who.
>If Bush pulls out he can easily just point all his Super PACs in the direction of Rubio, If Bush would have pulled out a month ago, say, that money could have been returned and put into a PAC supporting someone else. Not now though.
>he's polling at 3% nationally, it'll happen soon. I think after New Hampshire That's what I was getting at that to say he'll live to see himself turned into the chaos candidate. He'll go full autismal shooting himself in the foot all the while and won't care how low his numbers get.
>>59964837 He screams about White Republican Jaysus™ and wanting small government while using government to restrict things he doesn't like, so he's pretty on par with standard Republican sentiment.
Plus he's still considered "outside the establishment". What people say in polls and who they actually vote for are often different, so many of Trump's supporters might not actually vote for a meme and he seems like a more realistic candidate.
>>59975877 >Cruz is a talker, not a doer. It's like you don't even know the man. >helped kill amnesty >helped kill gun control efforts >helped kill blanket NSA spying >helped kill Obama's Syrian intervention >did most of this without the support of his own party's leadership
>>59976104 >He screams about White Republican Jaysus™ and wanting small government while using government to restrict things he doesn't like To what do you refer? Hell, some people here thought it would get him in trouble with his base to pass on media reports that he'd allow states to decide how best to handle many social issues. >>59976577 fedora faggot
>>59976619 How does Trump stop him though? He already tried to go negative when Ted pulled even in Iowa and suffered a backlash. Plus his shit talking Ted's religion there is going over like a led balloon.
>>59976640 He opposes gay marriage, abortion etc. because Jaysus told him so personally.
Also calling the idea of net neutrality the "Obamacare of the internet" just makes you too retarded to be ever taken seriously. Literally no coming back from that.
But it's what Republicans want to hear. And Democrats want to hear that they could save America if only Republicans would quit ruining it. I don't know why I spend so much of my time following politics.....
>>59977683 >Also calling the idea of net neutrality the "Obamacare of the internet" just makes you too retarded to be ever taken seriously. Too bad you and your ilk can't discern the difference between small letters, and the general concept, and capital letters which refers specifically to a policy of internet regulatory regime under legislation that was wrote in 1915.
>>59979919 Net neutrality was written in 1915? The fuck are you babbling about, son?
Don't be so sure that net neutrality is bad just because Obama supports it. It's pretty important and has nothing to do with the left/right pissing match. Shit, democrats should be the ones fighting it because it gives them more control, but even they're on board. It's important.
>>59980953 >Net neutrality was written in 1915? The fuck are you babbling about, son? Sorry, 1934 (must have confused this with another issue). Referring to the Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC, the governing body newly authorized to implement regulations on the internet as granted by the push for Obama's cleverly titled Net Neutrality (what was really meant by the capital letters).
>Don't be so sure that Net Neutrality I had to capitalize for you. Going on... >just because Obama supports it Oh, no. Government regulation is always good, and nu-Republicans (or nu-rightists) should just get on board. The left taught us that.
>It's pretty important and has nothing to do with the left/right pissing match. Shit, democrats should be the ones fighting it because it gives them more control, The left never fights their increasing ability to exercise a coercive force on private industry through government bureaucracies and agencies.
>but even they're on board. It's important. You fell for a bit of hand waving and demagoguery over the issue to support a government takeover all to prevent a happening that did not in fact happen.
>>59976104 >>59977683 >He screams about White Republican Jaysus™ >because Jaysus told him so personally.
And further, I don't see what good it does by the implication that a not just one but both political parties attempt to be conspicuously unrepresentative of its people, and adopt a secularist approach in all that they do. Especially so the Republicans, when much of their national electoral strength comes from voters with religious concerns.
Pushing the secular candidate over the one who has appeal to evangelicals and others with a religious bent merely for that purpose is a action which can have but one result: another loss for the right.
Though you don't seem to be a rightest, so it may just be wasted word on you.
>>59986816 >How and why does Ted Cruz think he can? Because Arnold was born in Austria of Austrian parents while Ted's mother was an American. People don't cease to be American when they're out of the country, so it doesn't matter where they're born. They're citizens.
And America has had enough of outsiders with shadowy backgrounds stealing their way into the White House. We already have someone like that in the White House.
It's to put a real American man back in that position. Cruz isn't one of us. His background is just too weird. Canadian born, raised by a single mother, father was an ex-communist revolutionary who didn't get American citizenship until 2006. It's all just weird and gross. Enough! Many of us are sick and tired of being nudged toward a more "progressive" direction where we're expected to tolerate this sordid kind of thing. We want a President who is one of us. Who comes from our country and was raised by a real family, with real American values, who looks and speaks like we do. There's no shame in wanting a President who fits the more traditional expectations of an American man. Enough with the shadowy outsiders.
Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. He's a citizen because Congress passed the McCarran-Walter Act in 1952, which included a statute that made children born to citizen mothers abroad citizens. Before this Act was made law, children born to citizen mothers in foreign jurisdictions were not given cittizenship at birth.
As evidenced by this Supreme Court case, where a child born before the Act to a citizen mother in Italy was deemed not a citizen by the Court:
>>59988233 Again, he was granted citizenship at birth via a statute that Congress passed into law, via their naturalization power under Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution. Without this naturalizing statute, Ted Cruz wouldn't have been born a citizen at all, much less a natural born one.
>>59988343 >By law. yes. laws are used to define things like immigration statutes.
the constitution doesn't define what is and is not citizenship, it's left up to the legislature. the supreme court has never ruled on the limits, it is simply left to the legislature to separate what grants citizenship by birth and what is legal immigrant citizenship.
the legislature defined him as a natural born citizen, one who is born as a citizen.
he isn't a naturalized immigrant given a speed-pass through the immigration process. he is a citizen by birth, not by legal immigration.
>>59988030 In the sense that he's not a regional guy (Kasich), or a guy running to sell books (Carson), or to impress his philosophical view of issues onto the field (Rand). He's just a populist, with his reason for being the premise that he can win, a common refrain of his on the stump. Time doesn't take away from it, it just means he's media savvy enough to keep the momentum going with a great deal of media attention. It doesn't hurt, and lends him the appearance of strength, but early losses devastate the underlying message of his candidacy.
>>59988723 So by your logic, Congress can define any term in the Constitution via one of its delegated powers, even if that power only authorizes them to naturalize people as citizens, not confer "natural born" status? So Congress can redefine "arms" in the Second Amendment to mean "all non-assault weapons"? Congress can redefine "speech" in the First Amendment to mean "all non hate-speech"?
No? Why not? You're saying they can redefine "natural born" to mean whatever they want it to mean, even though they were only given the power of naturalization, not redefinition of natural born. So why can't they redefine "arms" and "speech" even though they weren't given that power either?
And why didn't the framers just say "born citizen" instead of "natural born citizen"? That would, obviously, include all citizens naturalized at birth, like Senor Cruz.
>>59988939 "natural born" isn't defined or limited by the constitution. the constitution only mentions that there are those who are natural born citizens, and those that are naturalized citizens. it doesn't define either of them explicitly.
"naturalized at birth" isn't a thing. naturalization is the process where a citizen of one country becomes a citizen of another country.
if you are born a citizen of country X, you aren't "nationalized by birth as a citizen of x", there's no transference of citizenship from one place to another. you are "naturally born a citizen of x"
yes, congress gets to define things undefined in the constitution, back-checked by the supreme court.
this is pretty much what they do day-in and day-out.
congress ruled that children born to citizens outside the US can assume the citizenship of their parents naturally. the supreme court has never declared that these people aren't natural born citizens, there's nothing in the constitution saying they can't be considered as such.
>>59989510 >"natural born" isn't defined or limited by the constitution.
Neither is "speech" or "arms". We determine the scope of the meaning of those terms by looking to the context of their original meaning at the time the terms were included in the framing of the Constitution. And at the time of the framing, "natural born" did have a specific definition under English common law. In fact, under English common law, women couldn't confer citizenship at all. Only fathers could.
>the constitution only mentions that there are those who are natural born citizens, and those that are naturalized citizens. it doesn't define either of them explicitly.
The ONLY term in the Constitution that is defined by the Constitution itself is "treason". You're not saying anything convincing. We could apply your logic to literally every amendment in the Bill of Rights. It would be a disaster if we did.
>"naturalized at birth" isn't a thing.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. See Montana v. Kennedy (1961).
>naturalization is the process where a citizen of one country becomes a citizen of another country.
Yes, via statute, like Ted Cruz. That is the process Ted Cruz went through, you know.
>if you are born a citizen of country X, you aren't "nationalized by birth as a citizen of x", there's no transference of citizenship from one place to another. you are "naturally born a citizen of x"
Again, the Supreme Court and hundreds of years of American legal history disagrees with you. Do you actually care about the Constitution at all, or just a single presidential candidate in a single election cycle?
>yes, congress gets to define things undefined in the constitution, back-checked by the supreme court. this is pretty much what they do day-in and day-out.
Not even close! The Supreme Court has NEVER said that. Not only do they not do this "day-in and day-out" they've never done it at all.
>congress ruled that children born to citizens outside the US can assume the citizenship of their parents naturally.
Yes, via their naturalization power, which is the only power they have been delegated re: citizenship. It even says so explicitly right in Article I!
> the supreme court has never declared that these people aren't natural born citizens
You're wrong. They did so in the Montana v. Kennedy case. At least do me the courtesy of reading this case before you reply. We can't have an intelligent discussion about this if you're not up on the case law.
>>59989079 >I can't wait until Trump's $35 million ad blitz this month buries Senor Cruz once and for all. You see this as Trump's great strength as a newly minted politician. I see it as just another mile marker on the road to Trump's demise.
>Isn't it great! The thing about Trump is that he's so skilled at manipulating the media he gets all his for free so that nobody else can make the news cycle carson rises to pass trump >No, but did you see how Trump went ballistic on that guy even though Trump only counter punches when someone attacks him? terror attack happens carson falls >See! See? Trump is unstumpable! He's going to win all 50 states loses Iowa lead again >doesn't matter. Nobody cares about corn. cruz rises nationally >No sweat! Trump will just have to use all his money loses south carolina loses super tuesday walks into the convention looking for a bargain with his delegates
>>59990294 >You see this as Trump's great strength as a newly minted politician. I see it as just another mile marker on the road to Trump's demise.
That makes absolutely no sense. Senor Cruz, who is an establishment neocon, has taken millions from lobbyist and billionaires (some of whom are open borders establishment types, as you know) and spent that money on ads. That's not even to mention the Super PACs he utilizes. In fact, this is the only reason Cruz is doing well in Iowa. But for some reason, the same strategy that led to Cruz's rise in a single state, will be Trump's downfall in all of them? You're silly. And a Jew. You ooze Jewishness.
>carson rises to pass trump For a week?
>terror attack happens >carson falls
We've been over this. Trump is who killed Carson. We all know it. You can deny it all you want, but I already know everybody agrees with me. Good luck convincing them otherwise, Shlomo.
>loses Iowa lead again
He got it back in the CNN poll. Trump leads Iowa in the most recent poll.
>cruz rises nationally
He's not even close to Trump in any other state except Iowa.
>loses south carolina >loses super tuesday
Kek. Now you're just being silly. You sound like one of the Bernie people now.
Face it, your spic neocon candidate is going to go the way of the dodo. Trump's ad blitz will bury him.
>>59990032 >by looking to the context of their original meaning at the time the terms were included in the framing of the Constitution. sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. we determine the scope of the meanings depending on the supreme court's decision when they're called upon to decide, not on some set in stone dictionary they left behind.
>The Supreme Court disagrees with you. See Montana v. Kennedy (1961). doesn't cover naturalization at birth. it determines that someone isn't a citizen for being born overseas to a single US citizen parent before the law was changed.
>That is the process Ted Cruz went through it wasn't a process. there was no transferance. he went from a non-entity to an american citizen. at no time was he ever not an american citizen.
>Do you actually care about the Constitution at all, or just a single presidential candidate in a single election cycle? i don't care about ted cruz. you're just retarded for thinking he isn't legally eligible to run.
>They did so in the Montana v. Kennedy case which isn't applying the 1952 act. in order for ted cruz to be ruled not a natural born citizen, the supreme court would have to find the 1952 definitions of citizenships unconstiutional.
>Not even close! The Supreme Court has NEVER said that. Not only do they not do this "day-in and day-out" they've never done it at all. you're saying congress never passed laws dealing what limits there are to the first amendment? pretty sure there's lots of laws defining limits to freedom of speech or the press.
>>59990673 >We've been over this. Trump is who killed Carson. We all know it Trump began to attack Carson the moment he started pushing ahead in polls in late October / early November. Carson began his precipitous fall when Paris happened, which turned voter's top concerns from domestic to foreign and put the good doctor out of his element.
Insisting on willful ignorance does not bode well for your guy's candidacy, for it blinds you to what lies ahead. I know some among you 'Trumpfags' (not the memers or bored Democrat shills having a giggle) see that as yet another a strength, though.
>You can deny it all you want, but I already know everybody agrees with me. Good luck convincing them otherwise, Shlomo. Indeed, it doesn't matter what other people think. It only matters what those people who came off of Carson think. You want to leave the impression with them that your guy's mastery at making their guy out to be a fool will bring them over to your side.
Constitutional conservatives are originalists. Is Ted Cruz not a constitutional conservative (I don't believe he is, but his supporters seem to think he is, so is he)?
>we determine the scope of the meanings depending on the supreme court's decision when they're called upon to decide, not on some set in stone dictionary they left behind.
If you're just going to fall back on Supreme Court precedent then you lose their too. There is precedent that supports my position, and none that supports yours.
>doesn't cover naturalization at birth.
That's precisely what it does. That is what the entire Montana v. Kennedy case was about. You didn't read it. Are you going to read it, or continue to talk out of your ass?
>it determines that someone isn't a citizen for being born overseas to a single US citizen parent before the law was changed.
Exactly. Before the law was changed VIA CONGRESS POWER OF NATURALIZATION. That is the ONLY power they have over citizenship. It says so right in the Constitution!
But do you not see how your entire position crumbles right here? The Court said that the petitioner in the Kennedy case was not a citizen at birth because no naturalization law made him one. Therefore, he was not a natural born citizen. Or else he'd have citizenship at birth. So the question then becomes exclusively: Can Congress define "natural born citizen" via their naturalization power? The answer is quite obviously no, that's absurd.
>i don't care about ted cruz. you're just retarded for thinking he isn't legally eligible to run.
Everybody is eligible to "run". That is not what the Natural Born Citizen Clause precludes. It precludes eligibility for the office itself. If my argument is so retarded, why are you struggling so much to make sense of a better argument?
Exactly. In the absence of a naturalizing statute, children like Ted Cruz are not born citizens. They are thus not naturally born citizens and never can be.
>in order for ted cruz to be ruled not a natural born citizen, the supreme court would have to find the 1952 definitions of citizenships unconstiutional.
Not at all. Not even close. They'd merely need to recognize the fact that naturalization and natural born citizens are two different things, as they've already done in the Wong Kim Ark case.
>you're saying congress never passed laws dealing what limits there are to the first amendment?
I am saying that Congress does not, and never has, at any time, been delegated the authority recognized by the Supreme Court or any court to redefine terms in the Constitution. Congress passes a law, and subject to a case or controversy, the courts review the law, and decide independently if the law conforms to the terms of the Constitution or does not. If it does not, it is ruled unconstitutional and struck down. Under your absurd theory, no law could ever be struck down as unconstitutional because Congress could redefine every term in the Constitution to make their laws constitutional. The courts have never allowed them to do this. Never.
>pretty sure there's lots of laws defining limits to freedom of speech or the press.
>>59990673 >He got it back in the CNN poll. Trump leads Iowa in the most recent poll. You meant to say the PPP poll. The last CNN poll was a month ago. But Gravis is the immediate last poll, which has the race tie, but with Cruz by the average.
Only an idiot cares to read into every little tick on the chart. What matters are trends. The trend is that Trump hasn't enjoyed a lead in Iowa since mid November, and struggled against Carson before that for a month.
>>59991667 Wait, what? No. I don't want Ted Cruz neocons on our side. We can and we will do it without them. The neoconservative movement in general needs to be killed off in its entirety. So no, I'm not trying to convert them. Not at all.
I'm just pointing out what everybody knows -- Trump's pathological, belt buckle speech, which now lives in infamy as one of his most famous stump speeches (for a reason) is what put the final nail in Carson's coffin. It lines up perfectly with the sharp drop in Carson's numbers. This speech got more coverage than any other thing related to Carson at that time.
>>59990673 >Kek. Now you're just being silly. Pic related. Lovin' life as a Cruzfag at the moment, and not even ramped up for the general.
>Face it, your spic [insert memish talking point here] candidate is going to go the way of the dodo. Trump's ad blitz will bury him. But I thought you guys were having so much fun patting yourself on the backs that he wasn't going to have to spend any money!
>>59992280 >we win by subtraction >and by calling everyone opposed to Trump neocons >in spite of the fact that the tactics that I use and who I chose to concentrate on will only help the actual neocon candidate if I am successful Like I said, good luck with that.
He's also not going to be nominated anyways; he's the Santorum of the cycle; he'll win Iowa and go on to grab a half dozen to a dozen flyover states worth a collective total of delegates less than that of California alone.
Trump is going to sweep much of the West and Northeast and probably most of the Midwest and Deep South. Rubio and Christie might be one-off candidates winning a state apiece. No word on Carson and Louisiana; he was ahead a month ago but they haven't updated the polling for that locale.
tldr; Trump is going to win about 35 to 40 states.
>>59992829 I never called everyone opposed to Trump a neocon. I called Ted Cruz a neocon, because that is precisely what he is. He is being propped up by neocon donors and lobbyists, his wife has ties to a neocon think tank (the Council on Foreign Relation... THE neocon think tank) and before the election cycle and a series of Cruz flip-flops to keep up with Trump, Cruz's policies were typical neocon fare.
We don't need another neocon outsider in the White House.
>>59992052 >The answer is quite obviously no, that's absurd. they and the supreme court are the only ones to define it.
in 1952 they defined that people in ted cruz' situation are citizens by birth.
the supreme court does not find this unconstiutional, by not striking the law down, the scotus endorses this new definition.
>You are wrong. really? you don't believe there are laws about slander or libel, or laws limiting access to the press? people are just allowed to say whatever they want whenever they want?
>The courts have never allowed them to do this. you're right in that the courts wouldn't allow the absurd straw man you're putting forth and pretending was what i was saying.
you brought up the 1952 immigration law, which defines ted cruz as a citizen from birth. thats them effectively defining the parameters of "natural born citizen" and "naturalized citizen". the courts not striking it down means they agree their definitions conform to the terms of the constitution.
>In the absence of a naturalizing statute except there is a naturalizing statute, which declares ted cruz a citizen by virtue of birth. it does not define a difference between "citizen by virtue of birth" and "natural born citizen". your court case does not make that distinction either. your court case does not rule that the person in question is a "citizen by virtue of birth" but not a "natural born citizen". the case rules he was not, at the time of his birth, granted citizenship by the laws that were then in effect.
>Wong Kim Ark case. new precedents on citizenship have been set in the last 120 years.
ted cruz being ineligible 120 years ago does not mean he is ineligible today.
>>59992280 >I don't want Ted Cruz neocons on our side. jesus. you don't know how voting works, either.
trump needs people to actually vote for him. it doesn't work by changing everyone's opinions to mirror trumps'. it works by getting most people to realize that he's good enough for agreeing with them on a few subjects.
Ted "Uncle Bernstein before Uncle Sam" Cruz Ted "Canadian Cuban" Cruz Ted "More money fo them kosher programs" Cruz Ted "Bomb Iran for the kosher clan" Cruz Ted "Removing foreskins for jesus" Cruz Ted "Jewry and usury" Cruz Ted "Puffy face" Cruz Ted "Inbred from the sped shed" Cruz Ted "Pragmatic panderer" Cruz Ted "Always the second choice never the first choice" Cruz Ted "Marijuana terrifies me" Cruz Ted "Ignore that I was born in Alberta" Cruz Ted "President Hoover 2.0" Cruz Ted "Beige Brigade" Cruz
>>59993171 >they and the supreme court are the only ones to define it.
Congress does not define the terms in the Constitution AT ALL. You can keep repeating it, but it will never be the truth.
>in 1952 they defined that people in ted cruz' situation are citizens by birth.
Yes, via their NATURALIZATION power under Article I. Ted Cruz is a NATURALIZED citizen.
>the supreme court does not find this unconstiutional, by not striking the law down, the scotus endorses this new definition.
The definition of citizenship, not a term in the Constitution! You're arguing in circles. Congress DID NOT re-define the term "natural born citizen" when they used their NATURALIZATION power to include more citizens into the concept of citizenship, not natural born citizenship.
What YOU are suggesting is the absurd premise that Congress can re-define any term in the Constitution that it wants to re-define. That is intensely anti-constitutional.
>>59994240 >you don't believe there are laws about slander or libel, or laws limiting access to the press?
Wait. Are you suggesting that Congress invented the concept of defamation? Defamation has existed for hundreds of years at English common law. It was a part of our national conception of speech when the Constitution was framed. Congress redefined nothing. It merely acknowledged what was already true: Defamation is a built in exception to our free speech.
>you brought up the 1952 immigration law, which defines ted cruz as a citizen from birth. thats them effectively defining the parameters of "natural born citizen" and "naturalized citizen"
No it is not. All you're doing is repeating yourself without providing any information to substantiate your absurd claim. Congress was only delegated the power of naturalization. It says so right in Article I. It SAYS IT. What you're saying is that they have power BEYOND the one they were explicitly delegated. But you have no proof whatsoever to support this claim. Your entire position is untenable.
>except there is a naturalizing statute, which declares ted cruz a citizen by virtue of birth.
No. It declares him ELIGIBLE for citizenship AT birth, by VIRTUE of a naturalization law enacted by Congress. Naturalized citizens like Cruz still have to go through a naturalization process, as Cruz did, btw.
>your court case does not make that distinction either.
It absolutely does. The petitioner in Kennedy was born under identical situations to Cruz, and was deemed by the court to be not a citizen. Therefore, the court implicitly acknowledged he was not a natural born citizen, and could only be a citizen through naturalization.
>>59994275 > the courts not striking it down means they agree their definitions conform to the terms of the constitution.
Not at all. The courts not striking something down means only that they have not reviewed a case yet implicating the law in question. It doesn't matter here anyway because naturalization laws do not need to be struck down in order for the distinction between naturalized citizenship and natural born citizenship that has persisted in our law for hundreds of years to hold.
>except there is a naturalizing statute
Exactly. A NATURALIZING statute.
>new precedents on citizenship have been set in the last 120 years.
Wong Kim Ark has never been overruled by subsequent case law. You don't seem to actually understand our our constitutional system works on even the most elementary level. I think you're in over your head.
>ted cruz being ineligible 120 years ago does not mean he is ineligible today.
What Supreme Court case has overruled the binding precedent that Wong Kim Ark has established? Cite the case.
>>59993407 >He didn't kill NSA spying he "reformed" it with a band aid that does nothing. What he didn't do is stand on an unattainable principle of one and see through inaction that things continued under the status quo. The NSA's blanket subservience program was replaced by the freedom act, which is a good thing. >He is for foreign intervention in all theaters. No. He's for not putting large numbers of our troops in harms way waging stupid proxy wars, ones that may see us conflict with Russia, but rather holding Iran to account for being a sponsor of that war. Yet nowhere has he made mention that he's for intervention as a means to stop them. But he will use diplomacy to prevent their nuclear ambitions. >The courts, not Cruz, killed amnesty. Cruz baited the Democrats to stand against a measure that would not give them the new voters they wanted. When the left wouldn't stand by their public rhetoric, amnesty contained in the Gang of 8 bill died in the house without a vote.
>>59995004 This is a distinction without a difference. What is being reported isn't what makes Cruz the Santorum of this election. What makes Cruz the Santorum of this election is his out-there religious views that only play among a small cross-section of the GOP (particularly the not-so-conservative Evangelicucks in Iowa) and his focus on a single state under the questionable Iowa momentum theory that MAY win him Iowa, but no other state.
He's identical to Santorum in this regard. The other differences between them are meaningless ones that bear no influence on the outcome of the caucus or the primaries in general.
>>59993322 >trump needs people to actually vote for him. >it doesn't work by changing everyone's opinions to mirror trumps'. it works by getting most people to realize that he's good enough for agreeing with them on a few subjects.
Actually, the method that works is the one of running a positive campaign, that your candidacy is seem by those supporters who previously back candidate that fell by the wayside as one they can unify behind.
>under the illusion that you have a chance in hell of getting that across to a guy who wants to be seen backing Trump
>>59994275 >The petitioner in Kennedy was born under identical situations to Cruz, and was deemed by the court to be not a citizen. yes, before they changed the law on who would gain citizenship at birth.
>>59994361 yes, he needs votes, you retard. you aren't going to win the presidency with a third of the republican party and nothing else.
>as Cruz did no, he didn't go through the legal process of transfering citizenship from one place to another.
> natural born citizenship that has persisted in our law for hundreds of years no, it isn't defined in our law as being born of a citizen male, with all other people being naturalized citizens.
> The petitioner in Kennedy was born under identical situations to Cruz, and was deemed by the court to be not a citizen. Therefore, the court implicitly acknowledged he was not a natural born citizen yes, and congress has changed the dividing line between natural born and naturalized.
are you going to claim that indians are naturalized citizens, and not natural born, too? after all, they're only citizens because of a law that included them into being granted citizenship at birth.
>What Supreme Court case has overruled the binding precedent that Wong Kim Ark has established? Cite the case they ruled that a chinese dude born in the US is a US citizen. where did they rule on the outer most limits of what a natural born citizen could be?
>>59996167 Trump's campaign is the most positive campaign in this cycle. Who wouldn't want to make America great again and take our country back from the shifty Jews, progressives, and neocons like Cruz that have worked so hard to destroy it?
>>59994817 >which is why they're fighting over the same voters right now. Again, not the case, as polling reveals. Cruz's base is conservative, shown by who is over represented in support. Rubio is overrepresented amongst moderates.
>used the CNN poll you pointed out earlier because I still had the tab open.
>>59996420 >yes, before they changed the law on who would gain citizenship at birth.
Yes, via their naturalization power, the only power Congress has over citizenship. So they created more naturalized citizens, and no new natural born ones.
>yes, he needs votes, you retard. >you aren't going to win the presidency with a third of the republican party and nothing else.
We don't need neocons for it. Most Republicans are not neocons. And the Trump coalition includes conservative Democrats who are fleeing their party. We can do this without the rats that have set out to destroy this country. You'll see.
>no, he didn't go through the legal process of transfering citizenship from one place to another.
Not true actually. Under McCarran-Walter, naturalized citizens like Cruz have to meet ongoing benchmarks in order to fulfill their citizenship requirements.
This is explained in the Aldo v. Bellei case, another Supreme Court case which wrecks your anti-constitutional arguments:
In that case, a man born abroad to a single citizen parent and was naturalized at birth via the same statute that naturalized Cruz LOST his citizenship because he did not meet the residency requirements of the statute. The Supreme Court uphelding the sripping of his citizenship and declared him no longer a citizen.
As I said, it's a clearly defined naturalization process.
>no, it isn't defined in our law as being born of a citizen male, with all other people being naturalized citizens.
Nope. Still wrong. The Supreme Court has drawn a legal distinction between naturalization and natural born citizenship many times, most famously in the Wong Kim Ark case, which is still the law of the land.
>yes, and congress has changed the dividing line between natural born and naturalized.
Nope. Still wrong. They haven't done that and they are not constitutionally capable of doing that. Congress has only been delegated the power of naturalization. They have not been delegated the power to re-define "natural born citizen".
>are you going to claim that indians are naturalized citizens, and not natural born, too?
I'm not going to claim anything about the Indians because I don't need to. My point stalls tall and unassailable based on the law put forward in this thread. I don't need to distract from that like you do.
>they ruled that a chinese dude born in the US is a US citizen.
And if you read that case, in doing so, they acknowledged repeatedly throughout that there is a legal distinction between naturalization and natural born citizenship. The very opposite of what you're laughably trying to claim.
>where did they rule on the outer most limits of what a natural born citizen could be?
Who said anything about "outer most limits"? Either you're a naturalized citizen, a natural born citizen, or not a citizen at all. The only three possibilities. The court acknowledges that throughout Wong Kim Ark by mentioning "natural born" and "naturalized" subjects/citizens distinctly and drawing differences and parallels between them. Read the case. Read some case, for fuck's sake! You haven't read anything yet and you run your mouth like you know what you're talking about. It's shameful.
>>59996420 >you aren't going to win the presidency with a third of the republican party and nothing else. Ya know, I keep pointing this out.
>Not that I'm under any illusion whatsoever that this is going to bubble up into the national consciousness from a cesspool of the internet. I know where I am.
Trump has already made it inevitable that he'll crumble like a house of cards as soon as candidates begin to drop and their support sloughs off to other people running strong campaigns. That many of Trump's support base seems to think it helps to be jerks on the internet to everyone in opposition is only a delicious irony.
>>59998164 More wishful thinking. Trump supporters are not going anywhere. We're in it for the long haul and every other candidate is outright grotesque and unacceptable to us. There's not going to be some large exodus to Cruz's campaign, or anyone else's. Even if Trump loses Iowa, which he won't after the ad blitz buries Cruz. One state is one state, and Iowa is a non-representative state.
We do not need the neocons to win. All we need is for them to stay split between Cruz/Rubio/Kasich/Christie/Bush long enough for Trump to gather delegate momentum. By the time this group consolidates around a single candidate, it will be too late.
And then in the general, the neocons will be ignored outright in favor of broadening the GOP tent to disgruntled conservative Democrats.
Thread replies: 155 Thread images: 39
Thread DB ID: 388914
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.