highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Naturalization are the laws and process which define any path to citizenship that is not natural as defined in Article II. Cruz' citizenship is due to the fact that Congress' passed a law.
Cruz' citizenship is due to the fact that Congress' passed a law.
Same could be said for us, too- Article II contains "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.".

If he meets the requirements, it's not up to you to say that he's not a US citizen.
 
MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Full Audioholic
Same could be said for us, too- Article II contains "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.".

If he meets the requirements, it's not up to you to say that he's not a US citizen.
I've not said that Cruz is not a citizen. I've stated that he is not a natural born citizen as that is the first Constitutional requirement for being the Executive and therefore doesn't meet the Constitutional requirements. I know I am a natural born US citizen as is any person born in one of the several States.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
I've not said that Cruz is not a citizen. I've stated that he is not a natural born citizen as that is the first Constitutional requirement for being the Executive and therefore doesn't meet the Constitutional requirements. I know I am a natural born US citizen as is any person born in one of the several States.
Surely, you don't think the rule was changed for him. His mother is/was a US citizen and he was a US/Canadian citizen upon birth. Let it go.

Got any links to when and why it was changed?
 
MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Full Audioholic
Surely, you don't think the rule was changed for him. His mother is/was a US citizen and he was a US/Canadian citizen upon birth. Let it go.
First, it's not about rules, it's about the law. Whether or not his mother and/or father were US citizens when he was born doesn't matter. What does matter is where he was born. To be considered a natural born citizen of the United States of America a person MUST be born in one of the several States. There is nothing to let go of other than your being misinformed.

Got any links to when and why it was changed?
The Constitution was ratified in 1787 and the requirements for the Executive have been the same since that year. The first US Immigration law was passed in 1790. Start there.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
First, it's not about rules, it's about the law. Whether or not his mother and/or father were US citizens when he was born doesn't matter. What does matter is where he was born. To be considered a natural born citizen of the United States of America a person MUST be born in one of the several States. There is nothing to let go of other than your being misinformed.


The Constitution was ratified in 1787 and the requirements for the Executive have been the same since that year. The first US Immigration law was passed in 1790. Start there.
Thanks for the civics lesson, really. Opinion doesn't equal fact.

BTW- I asked for links that support your argument and you posted some of the same details that are in the link I used. You know what a link is, right?

This was up for debate when he ran in 2016 and he would have been disqualified if he had been ruled eligible.


Odd, isn't it? The US has had immigration laws since 1790 and they can't be enforced.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Audioholic Slumlord
...


Odd, isn't it? The US has had immigration laws since 1790 and they can't be enforced.
Interesting reading. So, the Supreme Court still needs to define "natural born citizen" as the constitution does not define it and the 1795 change to the Naturalization Act
calls it "citizen."
So, case is not closed.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Interesting reading. So, the Supreme Court still needs to define "natural born citizen" as the constitution does not define it and the 1795 change to the Naturalization Act
calls it "citizen."
So, case is not closed.
In 1795, the new country didn't even have a population of 4 million, although I'm sure they didn't count the indigenous people because to them, those people didn't matter unless they could be used for some purpose. Article II also states that POTUS must have lived in the US for a minimum of fourteen years, but that would apply to foreign-born and living in the colonies at the time of the creation of the Constitution.

The link contains:

"And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States." and

"The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). and enactments of the First Congress.4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888). Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent."

 
MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Full Audioholic
Interesting reading. So, the Supreme Court still needs to define "natural born citizen" as the constitution does not define it and the 1795 change to the Naturalization Act
calls it "citizen."
So, case is not closed.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Long read but it does define Wong as a natural born citizen since he was born in a State.

On the road so responses will be sporadic
 
Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Ninja
Lovin' this thread '2024', we're circling the wagons over what's ahead in 3 years by pissing and moaning over what happen in the 18th century ! :p
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
HILLARY VS. TRUMP FOR THE '24 APOCALYPSE?

Really? Hahaha. The Dens can't find any better, and the Repubs are literally terrified of speaking out against Trump. The body must want to keep Trump just in case. He still would probably have more influence even behind bars LOL. The American landscape sure is dumb.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Reminds me of when Repubs were waiting at the doorsteps of the Capitol trying to get in to contest the election. It had the markings of Trump's do as I say or you're gone! Pretty soulless nonetheless.
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Samurai
Reminds me of when Repubs were waiting at the doorsteps of the Capitol trying to get in to contest the election. It had the markings of Trump's do as I say or you're gone! Pretty soulless nonetheless.
Repub Zombies
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
I'll go with DeSantis prediction. Has the right combo of toughness w/o the dickheadery of Trump.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja

>>>
As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we — all of us former senior military officials — are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk.
In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time.

One of our military’s strengths is that it draws from our diverse population. It is a collection of individuals, all with different beliefs and backgrounds. But without constant maintenance, the potential for a military breakdown mirroring societal or political breakdown is very real.

The signs of potential turmoil in our armed forces are there. On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record. A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name “Flag Officers 4 America,” released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections.
Recently, and perhaps more worrying, Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, the commanding general of the Oklahoma National Guard, refused an order from President Biden mandating that all National Guard members be vaccinated against the coronavirus. Mancino claimed that while the Oklahoma Guard is not federally mobilized, his commander in chief is the Republican governor of the state, not the president.

The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines — from the top of the chain to squad level — is significant should another insurrection occur. The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” commander in chief cannot be dismissed.
...
<<<
 
eljr

eljr

Audioholic General
Trump is a traitor. He'll never be President again. Any American that would even consider voting for him is a stooge and a problem.
agree, but he has been successful at installing people who will subvert democracy when he losses in 2024

democracy is over in the USA come 2024

you can take that to the bank

best scenario is that a hot civil war breaks out but I doubt it. But I doubt this will happen as Americans are to fat, lazy and ignorant for that.,
 
davidscott

davidscott

Audioholic Ninja
I predict that neither Trump nor Biden will run in 2024. Based on their records they are 2 of the worst presidents we have ever had. Trump worse by a long shot. So, let's see what is offered to us in 2024.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
I predict that neither Trump nor Biden will run in 2024. Based on their records they are 2 of the worst presidents we have ever had. Trump worse by a long shot. So, let's see what is offered to us in 2024.
Hillary seems to think he's setting himself up to run again and I watched part of a video where the host asked a group of people for one word to describe their feelings about a Trump-Clinton race last night. Hillary said that if he wins again, it will be the end of Democracy. Hate to break it to her, but we're there, already. Biden thinks he can mandate things without the authority, isn't mentally 'all there' and Harris is freaking AWOL. The House is bypassing the opposing party when voting on bills and they don't bother to balance the budget. They want to tax one group exclusively to pay for their agenda and they want to be able to buy/sell stocks when they can have a direct impact on the industries and corporations whose stocks they buy but WE can't. Hell, the investment & finance sectors aren't supposed to, either but THEY want to be able to.

F&ck them. They work for us, not the other way around.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top