Cruz is a natural born citizen. So is Rubio. Whether or not Obama is depends on a question of law that has never been answered. Logically he is not.

we're
a
democracy

ebonics
is
the
official
language
law
now

love
boris

Cruz is a natural born citizen.

Of Canada.

"Natural Born is in contradistinction to naturalized."

Says who?

"Of both Canada and the USA."

He's a citizen of both Canada and the USA, but a natural born citizen of only Canada.

Isn't that were various Kennedy's and Bathhouse Barry got their law degrees?

The law wasn't that when Obama was born, so it's an interesting question. But the law WAS that when Cruz was born, so it's clear: he was born a citizen. That's what natural born means. The opposite of natural born in naturalized.

You don't agree? Litigate it and win.

Says who?

Logic.

"His mother was a citizen, and under the law at the time of his birth, Cruz was, therefore, a citizen."

Correct. Just not a natural born citizen since he wasn't born here.

Says who?
Logic.

Meaning you made it up.

Truth: this has never been litigated. Therefore, there is no answer that is certain.

There is a logical answer, I've given it. Two kinds of citizens : Natural born versus naturalized.

And there's the political answer - the answer most likely to be given by the federal courts, and I've given it: Cruz is natural born - OBama is natural born if born in Hawaii, but perhaps naturalized if born in Kenya.

And then there are all of the speculative answers.

The TRUE answer will be whatever the Supreme Court decides once it has been litigated. If it's never litigated, then the answer is the facts on the ground. If Cruz is elected and takes office, he's natural born until somebody wins a Supreme Court case that says otherwise, or the Constition is amendeed.

Meaning you made it up.

As have you - everything you've said.

There is no controlling legal authority - none. It's never been litigated.

There is a logic to the law, and I'm better placed than most to know that logic, given that I've studied law, graduated with honors, practiced for a long time, been admitted in two states and before two federal courts.

There is no final answer until the Supremes rule, and there's no case before them. So anybody can say whatever he'd like.

I think that if it went before the federal courts, they would rule that born a citsen = natural born. No other decision would fit the logic of the law.

For all of the energy put into arguing originalism, originalism is not the law of the land, never has been, and unless Trump is elected and puts originalists on the court, probably never ever will be.

So, what Vattel said in 1768 is completely irrelevant.

unless Trump is elected and puts originalists on the court

Never happen - he loves Kelo.

"Two kinds of citizens : Natural born versus naturalized."

Three kinds of citizens: Natural born, naturalized, and born abroad to citizen parents. Cruz is the third kind.

"Therefore, there is no answer that is certain."

Correct. And given the uncertainty, who will vote for someone who may be disqualified?

who will vote for someone who may be disqualified?

All of the Cruz supporters. Republicans whose heads are screwed on with bolts. Nobody else.

Cruz will never be President. There's no point spending any time speculating about it. He is eminently detestable, and detested by everybody who has had to work with him.

Hillary, or Sanders, will beat him like a drum.

Never happen - he loves Kelo.

He has said that he likes justices like Scalia.

He will appoint conservative justices. Scalia opposed Kelo.

He has said that he likes justices like Scalia.

He will appoint conservative justices. Scalia opposed Kelo.

I'm not sure Trump knows that Scalia opposed Kelo.

Of both Canada and the USA.

He was natural born in Canada and the USA? That's a first.

Looking forward to the bumper sticker: Cruz, Natural Born Twice!

he loves Kelo.

Cite?

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump argued that eminent domain, including for private projects that “employ thousands of people” is “a wonderful thing” in an interview broadcast on Tuesday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel.

Trump stated, “I think eminent domain is wonderful, if you’re building a highway, and you need to build, as an example, a highway, and you’re going to be blocked by a hold-out, or, in some cases, it’s a hold-out, just so you understand, nobody knows this better than I do, because I built a lot of buildings in Manhattan, and you’ll have 12 sites and you’ll get 11 and you’ll have the one hold-out and you end up building around them and everything else, okay? So, I know it better than anybody. I think eminent domain for massive projects, for instance, you’re going to create thousands of jobs, and you have somebody that’s in the way, and you pay that person far more — don’t forget, eminent domain, they get a lot of money, and you need a house in a certain location, because you’re going to build this massive development that’s going to employ thousands of people, or you’re going to build a factory, that without this little house, you can’t build the factory. I think eminent domain is fine.”

Trump was then asked for his past support for the Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent domain in Kelo v. New London, he stated, “Eminent domain — number one, a person has a house, and they end up getting much more than the house is ever worth. You know, eminent domain is not like you — they take your house.”

He added, “if you have a road or highway, you gotta do it. If you have a factory where you have thousands of jobs, and you need eminent domain, it’s called economic development.”

Canadian, Cuban, and American. Throw a dart at a map of north america, and the odds are that Teddy is a "natural born citizen" there.

If you don't have a clue what Natural Born Citizen means. If he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father?

He can run for el presidente of Cuba too!

If he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father?

Good point. Cruz, Natural Born Thrice!

As the Founders and Framers intended.

Cite?

f he's a natural born citizen of the US because of his American mother, he's also a natural born citizen of Cuba because of his Cuban father?

That depends entirely on Cuban law.

If his mother was an American citizen and the law of the USA at the time he was born said that he was an American citizen, then he was natural born. Being born on a given piece of dirt is irrelevant - unless it's THIS dirt, THEN, because of the 14th Amendment, he'd be natural born even if BOTH of his parents were foreign citizens (unless they had diplomatic immunity and were not, as a result, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States").

because of the 14th Amendment, he'd be natural born even if BOTH of his parents were foreign citizens

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) excluded the children of invaders from automatic citizenship. Of course, the Rats and the GOPe will never treat the invaders as invaders,

That was before the Fourteenth Amendment

The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.

In Kelo, the Court effectively chose to protect original intent.

166 U.S. 226, 233, 236-37 (1897).

BTW, you didn't bother to actually read the decision, did you?

The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company lost big time, with the Court holding, "The requirement that compensation be made for private property taken for public use imposes no restriction upon the inherent power of the State by reasonable regulations to protect the lives and secure the safety of the people."

Natural Born is in contradistinction to naturalized.

Yes. It is also just the Americanized version of of the English natural born subject. Also, in the early use of the term by John Jay, it was written "natural born citizen," giving clear emphasis to the word born.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) excluded the children of invaders from automatic citizenship. Of course, the Rats and the GOPe will never treat the invaders as invaders,

Illegal aliens are not invaders. They're illegal immigrants. You don't employ invaders in businesses and homes.

But look, it's easy to get the answers to all of these things: litigate them, and send them up to the Supreme Court.

Who wins the election will determine who controls the court, and how the court answers.

So, it's Hillary or Trump who will decide. You pretty much know how Hillary will decide most things, and Trump.

Yes. It is also just the Americanized version of of the English natural born subject. Also, in the early use of the term by John Jay, it was written "natural born citizen," giving clear emphasis to the word born.

The fight will be endless until it's settled by litigation...or by it not mattering.

By the "Immaculate Conception" theory of natural birth, both parents have to be born on US soil of US-soil-born parents for a child to be natural born.

Trump's mother comes from Scotland, so according to some cranks he's not natural born either.

And even if the Supreme Court rules that he is, some cranks will take the position that this was not "the original intent" (as if they know what the founders "intended") and still won't accept somebody who wasn't "immaculately conceived" as natural brn

1. You don't employ invaders in businesses and homes.

2. it's easy to get the answers to all of these things: litigate them, and send them up to the Supreme Court.

1. Criminals do. It's illegal to employ them in businesses and homes.

2. Nope. It's a political question. Congress could and should declare them invaders.

It's a political question. Congress could and should declare them invaders.

There are insufficient votes in Congress to do anything like that. Congress is moving in the opposite direction.

There are insufficient votes in Congress to do anything like that.

Yep. Too many cucks.

"That was before the Fourteenth Amendment"

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 was decided in 1898. I'm curious. When did you think the 14th amendment was ratified?

When did you think the 14th amendment was ratified?

Its "interpretation" mutates from moment to moment.

"Its "interpretation" mutates from moment to moment."

Ratified in 1868, it took the U.S. Supreme Court 100 years to come to the conclusion that, hey, the 14th amendment means the BOR applies to the states.

The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company lost big time, with the Court holding, "The requirement that compensation be made for private property taken for public use imposes no restriction upon the inherent power of the State by reasonable regulations to protect the lives and secure the safety of the people."

My citing that case had nothing to do with the specific plaintiff ... nor is there any evidence on the table tha any of Trump's uses of eminent domain have done anything "to protect the lives and secure the safety of the people."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 was decided in 1898.

Relevance?

My citing that case had nothing to do with the specific plaintiff

Or the issue being discussed.

The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.

I'll take the Court's reasoning over your say-so: "Due process of law, as applied to judicial proceedings instituted for the taking of private property for public use means. therefore, such process as recognizes the right of the owner to be compensated if his property be wrested from him and transferred to the public. The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner, even if he be admitted to defend, cannot convert the process used into due proces of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation."

I'll take the Court's reasoning

The 14th Amend. says nothing about eminent domain. Or incorporation.

And the Court's reasoning in Kelo laughed at your position.

Relevance?

You said that case was decided before the 14th amendment. What's relevant is that you were wrong.