Discussion: Tenn. Bill Would Bar Candidates Who Are Not 'Natural Born Citizens' From Ballot

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #244984

1 Like
2

Or, How Trump Saved The Democratic Party
“And it didn’t cost me a dime!” - Trump

2 Likes
3

Withdraw this shit and cut the crap. Election law and voting rights are not the context to be playing “good for the goose, good for the gander.” This is really an issue for the courts and ultimately the SCOTUS, not partisan legislative shenanigans.

17 Likes
5

and this is why no progressive, moderate or Democrat needed to be a part of the ‘Ted is a Canadian’ movement.

If history goes the way it often does in this country, in ten years the general belief among most Americans will be “It’s the Democrats and the progressives who are birthers. The GOP only had a minor role in that mess.”

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 Haslam’s dirty work for him.

9 Likes
6

This is off topic but this is the new Jeb Bush ad. This guy is so pathetic

7

Wait. I thought the Constitution already said that only “natural born citizens” are eligible, and that the controversy was over what exactly that phrase means.

State legislatures sure are good at wasting time and the taxpayers’ money.

9 Likes
8

Except it’s not; it’s ironic, but it’s a serious Constitutional argument, supported by a lot of Constitutional scholars. Cruz isn’t “natural born” under the Constitution, though he is a citizen by birth under statute. Two different things.

ETA: And it’s not goose/gander either. Under the Constitution, Obama was a natural born citizen because he was born of an American mother in Hawai’i (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, it’s unclear), but in Canada, not the US. There’s no dispute about that. There is a very strong Constitutional argument that “natural born” means “born in the USA.” You can look up what’s 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 wasn’t 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 “natural born” 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. There’s a lot more to the argument than that, but to me, that’s pretty conclusive.

5 Likes
9

AND
a “natural born citizen” 
 is defined as 
?
This is a legislative Möbius strip!

5 Likes
10

and I still wouldn’t 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 “Well the Democrats were birthers first. Trump was just minding his business and then,”

its inevitable.

5 Likes
11

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).

1 Like
12

I’m 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 “constitutional arguments” 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 candidate’s eligibility is what the GOP did with this issue when they were using it to attack Obama, and it’s what these two Dems are doing right now. It’s one-upsmanship and “turnabout is fair play.” Engaging in it is irresponsible in this context and is a failure to behave like the adults in the room.

9 Likes
13

Vaginal birth only, please. No “C-section” candidates. Thank you.

12 Likes
14

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 – it doesn’t – 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.

3 Likes
15

Strict constructionists would say no forceps either !

3 Likes
16

This makes no sense on several levels. Speaking from a political perspective, if you’re a Democrat, why wouldn’t you want Cruz to be eligible? Unless you’re just trolling


17

This sounds like Alan Greyson has been giving them ideas.

1 Like
18

My thoughts exactly.

19

He is a naturalized citizen by statute (citizen mother, but born outside of US and its territories).

That’s 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 “birth abroad.”

3 Likes
20

Serious question, and forget Cruz for the moment. If there’s 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 doesn’t seem unreasonable – again, in the abstract, and not tied to Cruz – for states to want to avoid putting someone on the ballot who is ineligible for the position that he or she is seeking.

1 Like
21

I couldn’t agree more, @inversion. It’s not even snicker-worthy at this point.

3 Likes