but I can ask why something such as "natural born citizen" is in our Constitution, but yet, has never once been challenged for an official ruling as to what it's supposed to mean in regards to politics.
Because everyone who has ever been elected president has been a natural born citizen (under any reasonable interpretation of the word), so there has never been an occasion for the courts to precisely define the term.
There were accusations that Chester Arthur was born in Canada but they never gained much traction at the time. There have also been a few presidential candidates who were not born in US but they did not end up being serious candidates so the issue was not pursued.
but I can ask why something such as "natural born citizen" is in our Constitution, but yet, has never once been challenged for an official ruling as to what it's supposed to mean in regards to politics.
Because everyone who has ever been elected president has been a natural born citizen (under any reasonable interpretation of the word), so there has never been an occasion for the courts to precisely define the term.
There were accusations that Chester Arthur was born in Canada but they never gained much traction at the time. There have also been a few presidential candidates who were not born in US but they did not end up being serious candidates so the issue was not pursued.
This segues into a question I've been mulling over but don't know the answer: is natural born citizenship a requirement to run for president or is it only a requirement to serve as president?
This may seem like a meaningless distinction, but it would be relevant to a court's jurisdiction if Cruz's eligibility is challenged mid-election. If natural born citizenship is only a requirement to serve as president, but not to run, a court would not be able to hear challenges to Cruz's eligibility mid-election because the issue would not be ripe. A challenger would have to wait for Cruz to actually be elected president before his eligibility could be challenged.
Maybe some states have rules that ballots can only have eligible candidates on them. Would that let the courts settle the issue before the election?
Maybe. The question probably becomes complex at that point, and I can't really comment intelligently since this isn't my area. There could be Federal preemption issues, for example, that would just render the law invalid.
I dislike Mr. Cruz intensely as I feel his foundational philosophy comes to an overreaction to the problems that occurred within communist Cuba under Castro. The US never fell to communism, yet it was influenced by communism through socialist policies. I tend to agree that one of the tenets with FDR and his supporters thinking of the "common man" and redistribution of the wealth actually saved the wealthy. Consider this, that Hitler came to power through the dysfunction of the Weimar Republic. The Great Depression in the US was pretty bad, and whenever we consider violent labor groups in the 1800's like the Molly Maguires we must furthermore take the axiom that such sentiments over "capital" would have become a more complex internal seeds for a Second Civil War. It's not that everyone wants to be "mega rich" they want to be "comfortable within their situation" and "feel that they can get ahead." You put that into jeopardy, especially with the "tough luck life isn't fair" approach to "reality" whenever people have a thing called guns and access to terrorism and radical ideologies. I feel that the "rich" have a right to fear a "kristallnacht," which is a tendency through the reality or at least the marginal illusion of a meritocracy and sharing the wealth with productive workers and willingness to work with workers. When you impoverish people and create a proletariat, you encourage the stupid poor to take on the bad rich people through rebellion. In part, this is what is seen through the French Revolution, taking out the perception of a bad government in a bad economy to the point of extreme brutality.
There are "bad rich people" because within people there exists bad people who abuse power. The same is also the poor. Yet, the poor do outnumber the wealthy and this is in part how Mao Zedong came to power through encircement of the Kuomingtang in China. Mao would take over the peasant areas through promise of power, then choke the cities one by one and eventually took over major metropolitan areas. While Kaishek was also an idiot with conscripting people into his army and not redistributing wealth enough, he did succeed with Taiwan over his failures in China. "Fairness" is a fuzzy thing, but scew people over and they'll find a different leader to follow. The question is who? In that case, it not the law but rather belief that creates legitimacy and a system will change to reflect that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
"Natural Born" is not some subjective term. It has a legal definition, please don't do this, it's destined to be garbage.
The term does not, as of yet, have a legal definition in US constitutional jurisprudence. This is explained very clearly in my OP.
Nope. Defined in law.
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
8 U.S. Code § 1401
Those qualifications are what determine whether a person is a natural-born citizen. The first two directly, the others often as qualifications. There is precedent, while there may be a slight fuzziness, it is not near so unclear as you seem to desire it to be.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
Obviously there are a lot of insane birthers, but I always imagined that some fraction of them were just people like me who felt that a president should establish his qualifications for the office. So it blows me away that no one is out there shouting "Ted Cruz is ineligible to run."
I guess it's just me, then: I think Ted Cruz is ineligible to run.
I don't think Democrats/liberals want to go there and it's not necessarily because they want to take the high ground. It would offend a large portion of their Latino supporters and may be able to tied back to hurt their "undocumented worker" agenda.
Ted Cruz is like Obama/Hillary but Republican. Some things you just can't say about them or you'll be labeled "racist"/"misogynist"/etc.
Ted Cruz is like Obama/Hillary but Republican. Some things you just can't say about them or you'll be labeled "racist"/"misogynist"/etc.
What are those things you want to say but can't because you'll be labeled "racist"/"misogynist"?
Things like the topic of this thread. "Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen." I'm not talking about in Debate or any moderated, educated discussion, BTW. The general public will throw the "racism" card often without bothering to hear or understand explanations.
My point is that this is the denominator of people politicians have to deal with and when some of these individuals happen to be your biggest proponents you would be careful not to say anything that could be misconstrued.
Things like the topic of this thread. "Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen."
I'm confused. Who's calling you racist or/and misogynistic for saying Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen?
I don't see how that question could be racist and it certainly isn't misogynistic.
Donald Trump just announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination which would make any debate between him and Cruz interesting (assuming that the Republicans decide not to sweep the entire issue under the carpet).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There were accusations that Chester Arthur was born in Canada but they never gained much traction at the time. There have also been a few presidential candidates who were not born in US but they did not end up being serious candidates so the issue was not pursued.
This segues into a question I've been mulling over but don't know the answer: is natural born citizenship a requirement to run for president or is it only a requirement to serve as president?
This may seem like a meaningless distinction, but it would be relevant to a court's jurisdiction if Cruz's eligibility is challenged mid-election. If natural born citizenship is only a requirement to serve as president, but not to run, a court would not be able to hear challenges to Cruz's eligibility mid-election because the issue would not be ripe. A challenger would have to wait for Cruz to actually be elected president before his eligibility could be challenged.
Maybe. The question probably becomes complex at that point, and I can't really comment intelligently since this isn't my area. There could be Federal preemption issues, for example, that would just render the law invalid.
There are "bad rich people" because within people there exists bad people who abuse power. The same is also the poor. Yet, the poor do outnumber the wealthy and this is in part how Mao Zedong came to power through encircement of the Kuomingtang in China. Mao would take over the peasant areas through promise of power, then choke the cities one by one and eventually took over major metropolitan areas. While Kaishek was also an idiot with conscripting people into his army and not redistributing wealth enough, he did succeed with Taiwan over his failures in China. "Fairness" is a fuzzy thing, but scew people over and they'll find a different leader to follow. The question is who? In that case, it not the law but rather belief that creates legitimacy and a system will change to reflect that.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
The term does not, as of yet, have a legal definition in US constitutional jurisprudence. This is explained very clearly in my OP.
Nope. Defined in law.
8 U.S. Code § 1401
Those qualifications are what determine whether a person is a natural-born citizen. The first two directly, the others often as qualifications. There is precedent, while there may be a slight fuzziness, it is not near so unclear as you seem to desire it to be.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ted Cruz is like Obama/Hillary but Republican. Some things you just can't say about them or you'll be labeled "racist"/"misogynist"/etc.
Because -in my estimation- they're likely really and truly racist or/and misogynistic.
Things like the topic of this thread. "Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen." I'm not talking about in Debate or any moderated, educated discussion, BTW. The general public will throw the "racism" card often without bothering to hear or understand explanations.
My point is that this is the denominator of people politicians have to deal with and when some of these individuals happen to be your biggest proponents you would be careful not to say anything that could be misconstrued.
I don't see how that question could be racist and it certainly isn't misogynistic.