Discussion for article #244984
Or, How Trump Saved The Democratic Party
âAnd it didnât cost me a dime!â - Trump
Withdraw this shit and cut the crap. Election law and voting rights are not the context to be playing âgood for the goose, good for the gander.â This is really an issue for the courts and ultimately the SCOTUS, not partisan legislative shenanigans.
and this is why no progressive, moderate or Democrat needed to be a part of the âTed is a Canadianâ movement.
If history goes the way it often does in this country, in ten years the general belief among most Americans will be âItâs the Democrats and the progressives who are birthers. The GOP only had a minor role in that mess.â
No one will remember the current GOP front runner bringing up the idea of Obama having a fake birth certificate. Instead it will be two guys from Nashville who are currently Bill Haslamâs dirty work for him.
This is off topic but this is the new Jeb Bush ad. This guy is so pathetic
Wait. I thought the Constitution already said that only ânatural born citizensâ are eligible, and that the controversy was over what exactly that phrase means.
State legislatures sure are good at wasting time and the taxpayersâ money.
Except itâs not; itâs ironic, but itâs a serious Constitutional argument, supported by a lot of Constitutional scholars. Cruz isnât ânatural bornâ under the Constitution, though he is a citizen by birth under statute. Two different things.
ETA: And itâs not goose/gander either. Under the Constitution, Obama was a natural born citizen because he was born of an American mother in Hawaiâi (unless you believe he was secretly born in Kenya). Cruz was born of an American mother (who may or may not have become a citizen of Canada, itâs unclear), but in Canada, not the US. Thereâs no dispute about that. There is a very strong Constitutional argument that ânatural bornâ means âborn in the USA.â You can look up whatâs been written about it, but to me, the fact that in 1795 Congress enacted a statute that granted citizenship to children of American fathers (not mothers, that wasnât added until 1935) who were born abroad is proof that at the time, simply being born to an American citizen abroad was not sufficient to grant citizenship under the Constitution. So they added a statute to provide citizenship. If ânatural bornâ under the Constitution included children of American citizens born abroad (and outside US jurisdiction, so not in a US territory), then the statute would have been completely unnecessary. Thereâs a lot more to the argument than that, but to me, thatâs pretty conclusive.
ANDâŠa ânatural born citizenâ ⊠is defined as âŠ?
This is a legislative Möbius strip!
and I still wouldnât bet on this pony even if it had golden hoofs and four more legs.
My point is simple: keep that BS on the red side of the aisle. The moment when any Democrat or progressive is attached to something this divisive, is the moment that they become part of an argument that will soon evolve into âWell the Democrats were birthers first. Trump was just minding his business and then,â
its inevitable.
Unfortunately, Cruz does not qualify. He is a naturalized citizen by statute (citizen mother, but born outside of US and its territories). Unlike John McCain, who is a natural born citizen (citizen mother, born in the Canal Zone when it was a US Territory).
Iâm fully apprised of the issue, the facts and the relevant law (and, more importantly, the lack thereof), thanks. Really, the only thing that matters is that the manner in which it all applied to Obama was in dispute and the manner in which it all applies to Cruz is in dispute. The merits of what you admit are âconstitutional argumentsâ one way or the other mean nothing because those are for the courts to determine.
Using state legislatures to enact laws intended to influence an ongoing election by targeting a particular candidateâs eligibility is what the GOP did with this issue when they were using it to attack Obama, and itâs what these two Dems are doing right now. Itâs one-upsmanship and âturnabout is fair play.â Engaging in it is irresponsible in this context and is a failure to behave like the adults in the room.
Vaginal birth only, please. No âC-sectionâ candidates. Thank you.
This article should tell its readers that Tennessee has an overwhelming Republican majority in its state legislature and a Republican governor. If this bill actually had a chance of passing â it doesnât â then it would be a big deal because it would give Cruz (and maybe even his supporters) standing in Court to litigate the Natural Born Citizen clause, and he would basically have to do it.
Strict constructionists would say no forceps either !
This makes no sense on several levels. Speaking from a political perspective, if youâre a Democrat, why wouldnât you want Cruz to be eligible? Unless youâre just trollingâŠ
This sounds like Alan Greyson has been giving them ideas.
My thoughts exactly.
He is a naturalized citizen by statute (citizen mother, but born outside of US and its territories).
Thatâs not entirely accurate. My wife was born in Jordan to two American citizens while they were serving as doctors in a small village there. All 4 kids were born in the ME and not a single one had to go through the naturalization process. They just had to file paperwork with the local embassy documenting the âbirth abroad.â
Serious question, and forget Cruz for the moment. If thereâs a candidate who is clearly ineligible for the presidency under the Constitution (e.g., someone who was born outside of the US to two non-citizens), what entity is in charge of policing that, and at what point in the process? Is it the state elections officers, who are supposed to decide eligibility before putting someone on the ballot? Or, could that obviously ineligible person be elected through the electoral college, but not confirmed? And, who would make this decision?
I ask because it doesnât seem unreasonable â again, in the abstract, and not tied to Cruz â for states to want to avoid putting someone on the ballot who is ineligible for the position that he or she is seeking.
I couldnât agree more, @inversion. Itâs not even snicker-worthy at this point.