Thread: TED CRUZ CAMPAIGN HIT AGAIN, NEW 'BIRTHER' LAWSUIT FILED IN NEW YORK

Laws passed by Congress do not change, amend, alter, modify, define or otherwise have any impact on the Constitution. Someone born to an American mother in a foreign country is not a natural born citizen, they are by law eligible to be a citizen by birth which does not make them a natural born citizen, simply a person eligible for birthright citizenship, the same as children of illegal aliens, such citizenship is not natural born citizenship. It's citizenship by law, not nature.

Originally Posted by Judy

Laws passed by Congress do not change, amend, alter, modify, define or otherwise have any impact on the Constitution. Someone born to an American mother in a foreign country is not a natural born citizen, they are by law eligible to be a citizen by birth which does not make them a natural born citizen, simply a person eligible for birthright citizenship, the same as children of illegal aliens, such citizenship is not natural born citizenship. It's citizenship by law, not nature.

So, according to you, we should just ignore all constitutional amendments and laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President? The original U.S. Constitution was a basis for our laws but even the founding fathers knew there would be need for changes and upgrades as time passed. America has grown and changed during the last 200+ years, and so has the U.S. Constitution. For example, in 1787 the voting age was 21 and presidents could serve as long as they were reelected. Does anyone feel those laws should still be current today? I certainly don't and I seriously doubt many people do.

Originally Posted by MW

So, according to you, we should just ignore all constitutional amendments and laws passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President? The original U.S. Constitution was a basis for our laws but even the founding fathers knew there would be need for changes and upgrades as time passed. America has grown and changed during the last 200+ years, and so has the U.S. Constitution. For example, in 1787 the voting age was 21 and presidents could serve as long as they were reelected. Does anyone feel those laws should still be current today? I certainly don't and I seriously doubt many people do.

Those were changed by Constitutional Amendment. You forgot that women couldn't even vote in all states and we had to amend the US Constitution for that. Are you calling for a Constitutional Amendment to allow candidates like Ted Cruz, foreign born to a Cuban-Canadian father, and Marco Rubio, an anchor baby born here to non-citizen parents, to hold the office of President and Vice President of the United States?

Until there is a Constitutional Amendment to allow for that, neither are eligible to hold the office. Otherwise it's up to the American Voters. They made an exception in 2008 with Barack Obama, born here to 1 US citizen and a Kenyan citizen. I personally don't believe Americans will make that mistake again, let alone amend the US Constitution to allow it.

I'm curious why you would propose such a thing or believe that Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States should be foreign born to a foreign father or anchor babies born here to non-citizens.

Originally Posted by Judy

Those were changed by Constitutional Amendment. You forgot that women couldn't even vote in all states and we had to amend the US Constitution for that. Are you calling for a Constitutional Amendment to allow candidates like Ted Cruz, foreign born to a Cuban-Canadian father, and Marco Rubio, an anchor baby born here to non-citizen parents, to hold the office of President and Vice President of the United States?

Until there is a Constitutional Amendment to allow for that, neither are eligible to hold the office. Otherwise it's up to the American Voters. They made an exception in 2008 with Barack Obama, born here to 1 US citizen and a Kenyan citizen. I personally don't believe Americans will make that mistake again, let alone amend the US Constitution to allow it.

I'm curious why you would propose such a thing or believe that Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States should be foreign born to a foreign father or anchor babies born here to non-citizens.

So now you're accusing me of making proposals? I proposed no such thing and you know it. The law is the law and no proposal from me is going to change that fact. No I didn't forget that woman couldn't vote, I just failed to use it as one of my examples.

As I said, my comment was not about Rubio, it was just to correct an inaccurate statement about what constitutes a natural born citizen. According to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which was written with full consideration of the U.S. Constitution, Ted Cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen. The constitution is ambiguous on the specifics, so unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules (interprets differently) otherwise, Cruz is a natural born citizen. I don't think anyone should hold their breath waiting for that to happen.

Originally Posted by MW

....

According to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which was written with full consideration of the U.S. Constitution, Ted Cruz qualifies as a natural born citizen. The constitution is ambiguous on the specifics, ....

Why don't you quote this act directly or provide a link to the text of the act which explains it.

Because it doesn't explain it. Our laws can't violate the US Constitution and the 1952 Act has nothing to do with natural born citizenship, only citizenship through naturalization, because Congress only has authority over naturalization.

Can you imagine how stupid our founders would have been to entrust Congress with deciding or defining who can run for President and Vice President? LOL!! Fortunately, our founders were far brighter than that.

Originally Posted by Judy

Because it doesn't explain it. Our laws can't violate the US Constitution and the 1952 Act has nothing to do with natural born citizenship, only citizenship through naturalization, because Congress only has authority over naturalization.

Can you imagine how stupid our founders would have been to entrust Congress with deciding or defining who can run for President and Vice President? LOL!! Fortunately, our founders were far brighter than that.

I don't mean to get in the way of your argument about who is eligible for the presidency, but for me the issue is more fundamental. I don't just question the eligibility of Cruz, Rubio, Obama and others for the presidency, I question their claims to citizenship. MW keeps citing laws. I want to see them.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

I don't mean to get in the way of your argument about who is eligible for the presidency, but for me the issue is more fundamental. I don't just question the eligibility of Cruz, Rubio, Obama and others for the presidency, I question their claims to citizenship. MW keeps citing laws. I want to see them.

Oh yes, there is a difference and for Cruz, his citizenship would be subject to naturalization law. It will be interesting to see if he's even a citizen. He might not be. There are conditions that have to be met and procedures one has to go through even to be a citizen when born in a foreign country. So you're right, he may not even be a citizen! He admits he had Canadian citizenship until very recently.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

Why don't you quote this act directly or provide a link to the text of the act which explains it.

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act

H.R. 13342; Pub.L. 414; 182 Stat. 66.

82nd Congress; June 27, 1952.

You can find the full text of this law here or download the PDF.

Oh that's good, JohnDoe2! Now those who think that law says that Cruz is a natural born citizen under Article II of the US Constitution and eligible to run for President or Vice President can find the section and post it and we'll know what section to tell Congress to DELETE!!!