True. Nor for Terri Shiavo, now that I think about it. It would still take someone with standing to bring the suit, though.
(edit) And I think he’d have to be president for a suit to be brought?
Maybe it’ll end up that only citizens (under 1787 rules) born in the states participating in the original constitutional convention are eligible for the presidency.
What makes this all particularly amusing it that Cruz claims he is an “originalist”, meaning that the “original” interpretation of the Constitution should/must be the “correct” one. Since the Founding Fathers were worried about some furriner coming in and taking over (remember, this happened in the monarchies of Europe because of bloodlines), they wanted to make sure that no foreigner was allowed in at the top. So…if you’re an originalist, as Ted Cruz claims he is, then Ted Cruz because, on top of everything else he was also a Canadian citizen, must necessarily be ineligible.
But, of course, as so often happens, cherry-picking wins the day – whether it’s from the Bible or the Constitution. Modus operandi: select those bits to support what you want, and ignore those bits (“love thy neighbor as thyself”) that are uncomfortable or undesirable to your goal.
Which is, of course, why they ignore the “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd Amendment and read only “me entitled to guns, guns, guns!!!” The original intent was along the lines of National Guard, not yahoos in Oregon holeing up in bird sanctuaries…
[quote=“Trippin, post:33, topic:31165”] Facts are provably antithetical to right wing decision making.
[/quote]
11 Likes
Please keep this on the intelligent discussion level.
There is a clear case to be decided on what the definition of “Natural born Citizen” means. Courts have never made a decision about it.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that only citizens of the original 13 Colonies are eligible.
4 Likes
I was born on an American Air Force base abroad, and I always assumed that I either wouldn’t be elegible to become President or that I would have to go through a process to argue that the base was American territory at the time (but then, does it matter that I was actually born at the nearby civilian hospital?). I totally think that most people just haven’t thought about what “natural-born” means, and that it’s not at all trivial. Never expected that we’d have to look at British law from 600 years ago, though!!
no, I think that’s what the election part is for.
This is a difficult question. I think we need the help of a true scholar and first-rate legal mind to decide it. That’s right, we need to call in…US Superior Court “Judge” Bruce Doucette!
5 Likes
“[I]t’s a mystery to me why any one thinks it’s an easy question.”
Let me solve the mystery for you. Neither the conservative nor liberal side of the supreme court would ever decide this case in such a way as to exclude Cruz or anyone born to US citizens abroad from the presidency or more generally from being considered natural born citizens, no matter what contradictory information legal scholars cite. So it’s an easy question.
For once I am repeating Ronald McDonald:
–“I’m lovin’ it”–
4 Likes
There’s absolutely no way the current courts would not interpret “father” to mean “father or mother” if they cited Blackstone in figuring this out.
If Cruz were a democrat though…
3 Likes
Please notice that a screwup for Cruz is a minor “filing error.” But for anybody he sees as an opponent, the same type of problem is proof of godless, reckless, criminal behavior that completely disqualifies that person from the human race. Watch the Rightwing Noise Machine follow lock-step.
5 Likes
For the umpteenth time, the constitution only mentions two types of citizens naturalized and natural born, there is no other type on any Federal government, bill, law, form, paper, or website.
Therefore by process of elimination if you are a citizen and did not have to go thru the naturalization process, then you are a natural born citizen.
To rule any other way requires that the court “invent” of a new third type of citizen which never existed, and that would be just as WRONG as the Bush vs Gore decision was because they both ignore the words written in the constitution!
4 Likes
“[I]t’s a mystery to me why any one thinks it’s an easy question.”
I’ll explain. The way I see it, we have two kinds of citizens in this country.
- Naturalized - Those born as citizens of other countries who elect to become U.S. citizens and complete the process for doing so.
- Natural born - Those who are U.S. citizens from birth.
Loathe as I am to admit it, I don’t see how Rafael Cruz falls into the first category, so he must belong in the second.
4 Likes
Normal vetting process; trying to weed out the terrorists.
Ted can explain it better, I’m sure.
Katyal and Clement can talk all they want about “three radical 18th-century British statutes", but that won’t mean a thing because ‘certain’ Supreme Court Justices say, “We don’t recognize any stinkin’ foreign statutes!” If they bend on that to get one of “theirs” on the ballot, it will hold them up to (more) ridicule making them look even more the shameless partisans that they are.
But that puts their nuts in a vise. Because they are also Constitutional “originalists” who believe only the exact and specific wording of the Constitution that never changes, they would have to side with "true Constitutional originalist, James Madison, who wrote (paraphrasing here), “No fucking way”. And for obvious reasons they don’t want to do that either.
If they toss Ted, that vise gets even tighter and the nomination goes to Trump. Either way, they’re screwed. And so is the GOP.
1 Like
If I understand correctly, and I’m not a lawyer, so I’m receptive to correction,Cruz would have to win the election and a losing candidate would have to challenge him. I don’t believe that means he’d have to be President - the challenge could be brought in the period between election day and inauguration day. But the thought of it is awful really - can you imagine a candidate who clearly lost the election, trying to win the election by disqualifying the apparent winner in the courts? It’d be worse than Bush V Gore in terms of optics - at least with Bush V Gore, Bush seemed to have the lead in Florida when he brought his challenge.
1 Like
Please keep this on the intelligent discussion level.
I think the batteries in your SnarkMeter 5000 need replacing.
2 Likes
I agree there are only 2 types of citizens, naturalized and natural born. The argument made by Professor McManamon is that Cruz was naturalized at birth through a special process established by Congress for the children of US citizens, which it is within their powers to do. I think there is certainly room to argue either way, though, as I pointed out above, there are many practical barriers to reaching the courts.
Quite possibly. I’ve spent too much time recently reading the Washington Post comments, the numbskulls there can drive you up a wall…