Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Official "Ted Cruz Kicks Ass" Thread
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1224
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 1:41 am    Post subject: Official "Ted Cruz Kicks Ass" Thread Reply with quote

I just want everyone here to know that Ted Cruz (R-Texas) kicks ass.

Summary: Reid tried some emotional theatrics and Cruz served him for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully he doesn't become compromised as have others.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 4:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hopefully he doesn't have a camp in the back 40 of the family ranch called "Nigger Rock" or believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Just kidding. He's actually a brilliant man (a real Constitutional lawyer, with actual experience, unlike "Professor" Obama).

I'd like to see Ted Cruz run for President, though, just to watch Democrats hypocritically go into Birther mode (Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban refugee, he is therefore a citizen automatically, but it's not clear whether that makes him a "natural born citizen".) His father did not become a citizen until 2005. His mother was not in Canada on government orders (like McCain's parents in the Canal Zone when he was born).
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
I'd like to see Ted Cruz run for President, though, just to watch Democrats hypocritically go into Birther mode (Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban refugee, he is therefore a citizen automatically, but it's not clear whether that makes him a "natural born citizen".)
Unless something has changed, it appears to be "natural."
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see anything there about "natural born". That merely confirms what I said: that he is born a citizen of the U.S.

However, I do believe that being born to one U.S. Citizen parent automatically makes one a U.S. Citizen at birth, and that this 'at birth" qualification (i.e., not requiring "naturalization") is the currently accepted definition of "natural born".

Also, he doesn't have a fake birth certificate.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

Quote:
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.[1]

I guess since it isn't defined, even Obama can be considered natural-born.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That was the point of the Senate coming up with that definition, after it having been interpreted as "born in the U.S.A." for as long as anybody can remember.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Quote:
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".


It didn't just come up automagically in 2011 to validate Negro McJesus's presidency and let him run again... :P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wildhorse
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 148
Location: Estados Unidos De América

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Surely that act only applies to male white Arian Christian blue-blooded landowners in the USA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darth Marley
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the Arian Christians were persecuted a millennium before US penis got rock hard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16113
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Quote:
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".


It didn't just come up automagically in 2011 to validate Negro McJesus's presidency and let him run again... :P
Thank you. I thought I had heard of something prior to 2011.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Quote:
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".


It didn't just come up automagically in 2011 to validate Negro McJesus's presidency and let him run again... :P

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

Note that what you have quoted says (my emphasis), "children of citizens" in the plural. This law was interpreted by the courts to apply to "a child born outside U.S. territory whose parents are both U.S. citizens", and this question has come up numerous times over the years, long after 1790.

While we now have the opinion of a "Congressional research committee" (as cited by pjp and Wikipedia), this does not have the force of law; it's just one legal opinion created as advice for internal use by Congress. The matter is still open to interpretation by the courts.

It was indeed created in 2011 in an attempt to validate Chocolate Jesus's eligibility, not to "let him run again", but to free his campaign from the ethical stigma created by the open question, his inability to produce credible proof of domestic birth.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Naturalization_Act_of_1790

Quote:
The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".


It didn't just come up automagically in 2011 to validate Negro McJesus's presidency and let him run again... :P

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

Note that what you have quoted says (my emphasis), "children of citizens" in the plural. This law was interpreted by the courts to apply to "a child born outside U.S. territory whose parents are both U.S. citizens", and this question has come up numerous times over the years, long after 1790.

While we now have the opinion of a "Congressional research committee" (as cited by pjp and Wikipedia), this does not have the force of law; it's just one legal opinion created as advice for internal use by Congress. The matter is still open to interpretation by the courts.

It was indeed created in 2011 in an attempt to validate Chocolate Jesus's eligibility, not to "let him run again", but to free his campaign from the ethical stigma created by the open question, his inability to produce credible proof of domestic birth.


A. You didn't read the rest of that wikipedia article did you?

Quote:
According to an April 2000 report by the CRS, most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.


I said "It didn't just come up automagically in 2011" and both of the quotes i have provided support my point.

B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#Court_decisions

This supreme court decision seems to think that the plural in "children of citizens" means || not &&: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_v._Elg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
...

Okay, I was wrong that it had been interpreted as "born in the U.S.A." prior to the Congressional research opinion.

As to "it didn't just come up automagically in 2011", I did not say or even imply that it had never come up before. In fact, I clearly said it had come up many times before. My point was that the reason it came up in 2011 was to validate Chocolate Jesus' eligibility.

My main point is that the question is still open as to whether somebody like Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen", because it has not been legally defined whether having a single U.S. citizen parent satisfies the requirements. This is due to poor wording of the laws and legal precedents. This question is still open.

The Supreme Court case you cite is entirely irrelevant, as both of that child's parents were U.S. Citizens.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
...

Okay, I was wrong that it had been interpreted as "born in the U.S.A." prior to the Congressional research opinion.

As to "it didn't just come up automagically in 2011", I did not say or even imply that it had never come up before. In fact, I clearly said it had come up many times before. My point was that the reason it came up in 2011 was to validate Chocolate Jesus' eligibility.

My main point is that the question is still open as to whether somebody like Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen", because it has not been legally defined whether having a single U.S. citizen parent satisfies the requirements. This is due to poor wording of the laws and legal precedents. This question is still open.

The Supreme Court case you cite is entirely irrelevant, as both of that child's parents were U.S. Citizens.


Wut da fsck? 8O

Both parents were swedish, her father was naturalized as an American in 1906...

I'll agree that the case is irrelevant in the case of Ted Cruz, because that case i quoted sets precedent for jus solis and Cruz's case is determined by jus sanguinis, that really is a different argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, the case is entirely irrelevant, but not for the reason I originally said. :lol:

Any child born on U.S. soil is obviously a "natural born citizen". The problem here is that we've got a child born on Canadian soil, whose "parents" were not U.S. citizens (only one was).

The open question is whether a child borne abroad is automatically a U.S. citizen by virtue of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen, or if both parents must be U.S. citizens.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Yes, the case is entirely irrelevant, but not for the reason I originally said. :lol:

Any child born on U.S. soil is obviously a "natural born citizen". The problem here is that we've got a child born on Canadian soil, whose "parents" were not U.S. citizens (only one was).

The open question is whether a child borne abroad is automatically a U.S. citizen by virtue of at least one parent being a U.S. citizen, or if both parents must be U.S. citizens.


http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

According to that, unless i'm missing something, Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen". If we go by the "court decisions" section of the original wikipedia article quoted, they don't really differentiate between "citizen" and "natural born citizen".

With that being said, democrats might still be able to object, for the sake of being dicks about it.

Ps: Are we offtopic by arguing whether Ted Cruz is a normal ass kicker or a "natural born" ass kicker?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2013 1:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good link. Thanks for the research.

According to that, he would be a citizen automatically at birth, provided he can prove he is the offspring of his mother and that his mother (the U.S. citizen) lived in the U.S. for the requisite period of time prior to his birth, this period varying depending on whether or not the parents were married at the time of the birth

a) parents were married: mother must have lived ten years in U.S.

b) parent not married: mother must have lived one year in U.S.

Surprisingly, the requirement is longer if the birth is to a married couple abroud in which only one is a U.S. citizen than if the mother is unmarried.

Also, apparently the law provides lots of room for American men to go abroad and spray their seed without creating lots of little U.S. citizens, but not women. What a sexist law. :lol:

So, as long as we assume his mother lived at least 10 years in the U.S. (which I think is true) before his birth, then I'd say this does make him a "natural born citizen".
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum