Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

I B Hankering · 08-12-2013, 03:55 PM

U.S.C. § 1401
U.S. Code TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I >
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(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 (this applies to his mother).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

sexaholic87 · 08-12-2013, 07:00 PM

Wow.

I'm actually agreeing with I B.

Cruz can be POTUS. That clause in the constitution really means that someone who is given rights as a US citizen at birth. Most constitutional scholars agree with this interpretation.

What is funny, however, is that it does take a bit of "constitutional interpretation", which usually the conservatives are against. I would love to see how Scalia/Thomas would ninja flip THAT ruling.

Jewish Lawyer · 08-12-2013, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timpage

By law, U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States.

Non US citizens can come and go as they please, and demand the rights of citizenship anytime they feel like it.

JD Barleycorn · 08-13-2013, 02:24 AM

Number one, the birthers were Hillary supporters. You know, democrats. This is for Timmie, IF Cruz becomes the candidate do you really think that the democrats won't bring up the matter of his birth? Do you really think that? We have seen in the last 40 years how forgetful the democrats have become. When their candidate is a drafter dodger then military service means nothing. When their candidate has military service then that seems to be the primary qualification. When their president is a serial cheater then it is nothing. When a republican trips on the fidelity path then he (or she) must be crucified. Okay, you have a president unable to prove where he was born....but that is okay. Now if Cruz gets the nod the I guarantee that the democrats will turn out in force complaining about the constitution and birth certificates.

CJ7 · 08-13-2013, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Number one, the birthers were Hillary supporters. You know, democrats. This is for Timmie, IF Cruz becomes the candidate do you really think that the democrats won't bring up the matter of his birth? Do you really think that? We have seen in the last 40 years how forgetful the democrats have become. When their candidate is a drafter dodger then military service means nothing. When their candidate has military service then that seems to be the primary qualification. When their president is a serial cheater then it is nothing. When a republican trips on the fidelity path then he (or she) must be crucified. Okay, you have a president unable to prove where he was born....but that is okay. Now if Cruz gets the nod the I guarantee that the democrats will turn out in force complaining about the constitution and birth certificates.

only if its a valid claim .. they learned what yammering on and on about inane bullshit will get you from the republitards .. and it got the republitards another 4 years of Obie.

LexusLover · 08-13-2013, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timpage

Uh oh. That whole Canadian thing is already rearing it's ugly head. Brought to you, and supported by, GOP psychos everywhere. Reap what you sow.

If Cruz doesn't produce a certified copy of his REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE ...

... then he should NOT be President and #2 if his REAL BIRTH RECORD doesn't support his legal qualification to be President .., then he shouldn't be allowed to run for President....

or VP ... because like LBJ he may have to serve as POTUS.

CJ7 · 08-13-2013, 03:20 AM

SCARBOROUGH: I’m hearing from conservative House members... conservative House members, that have 95, 96, 97 percent ACU conservative ratings, that are saying, of Ted Cruz, this guy is making our life a living hell, by pushing things that will never work, only strengthen Obama, and they keep our people on the phone all the time.
And what they’re angry about is, that he’s doing it all to build his mailing list, so he can raise money and become a national candidate. And basically to hell, not only with the Republican Party, the hell with the conservative moment. And for anybody in talk radio, on the blogosphere that wants to say “Oh Joe, he's just an MSNBC liberal.” Yeah, with a 95 percent ACU rating, call conservative congressmen in the House and speak to them off the record. They’re just as pissed off at what’s going on as some moderate Republican senator in the Senate. Democrats love this. Conservatives hate it

Run Ted.

Guest040616 · 08-13-2013, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

Run Ted.

LexusLover · 08-13-2013, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtex

Can't wait to see the "reaction" ....

..... when the Hispanic voters get a whiff of the opposition trashing Cruz!

Ted may lose quickly in any primary effort, but he may "take one for the team"!

I suppose the opposition will have to allege Cruz is really Canadian? Not "Hispanic"?

JD Barleycorn · 08-13-2013, 09:50 AM

Is that a Canadian Hispanic or a Hispanic Canadian, Cuban-Canadian American?

I don't know why the liberal/socialists here are so concerned. It's 2013 and not 2016. At this time in 2008 Hillary was the one and only choice for the dems. We see how that turned out.

LexusLover · 08-13-2013, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

At this time in 2008 Hillary was the one and only choice for the dems. We see how that turned out.

Her fans are hoping most of the voters will forget who she is (or was) before the remake.

It doesn't matter how much ice cream, fruit, and whipped cream one piles on top. Still a turd underneath.

timpage · 08-13-2013, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Can't wait to see the "reaction" ....

..... when the Hispanic voters get a whiff of the opposition trashing Cruz!

Ted may lose quickly in any primary effort, but he may "take one for the team"!

I suppose the opposition will have to allege Cruz is really Canadian? Not "Hispanic"?

One thing he has made absolutely clear is that he doesn't much give a shit about the team. It's about him. Not unusal in a politician but some are more polished at it than others. He's not one of those.

Anyway, I agree he will lose quickly in the primaries but whatever the outcome, it's a plus for him. Who knows what the lay of the land will be in 2020?

LexusLover · 08-13-2013, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timpage

One thing he has made absolutely clear is that he doesn't much give a shit about the team. It's about him. Not unusal in a politician but some are more polished at it than others. He's not one of those.

We don't need another "trendy" President, anyway. It's about time we had someone qualified and mature, with a substantial amount of wisdom beyond his or her years.

Equally important is someone who is "respected" overseas ... and who those overseas will believe he will pull the trigger if pushed too hard....which is what I mean by respect.

Last but not least ... someone who is consistent in his positions on issues.

Guest032516 · 08-13-2013, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGoodBar

What is funny, however, is that it does take a bit of "constitutional interpretation", which usually the conservatives are against. I would love to see how Scalia/Thomas would ninja flip THAT ruling.

Conservatives aren't against "constitutional interpretation" since it is almost always necessary to interpret or define some term of the constitution when applying it.

Conservatives, however, are against reading INTO the Constitution things that are not there or, worse yet, saying that the Constitution has "evolved" because it is a "living document" and now means something different than what it used to mean. That's just making it up as you go along in order to get the result you want.

LexusLover · 08-13-2013, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Conservatives aren't against "constitutional interpretation" since it is almost always necessary to interpret or define some term of the constitution when applying it.

Conservatives, however, are against reading INTO the Constitution things that are not there or, worse yet, saying that the Constitution has "evolved" because it is a "living document" and now means something different than what it used to mean. That's just making it up as you go along in order to get the result you want.

You have effectively defined what is considered a "strict constructionist" in Con Law.

For instance a "strict constructionist" would perhaps demand

....................... a search warrant with EVERY SEARCH or SEIZURE of a person, place, or thing.

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Given the nature of our society today, particularly the mobility factor, that is not longer "reasonable."