Replies

I don’t know where you’ve been, but you are talking to someone who has for many years been debating the finer details of the natural born citizen controversy. Frankly, I don’t have enough hours in the day for the coming years to go back to the basics and haggle endlessly over them with folks who have no intention of even considering the merits of the controversy. The very fact you would suggest it is necessary to quote a definition for a phrase of natural law directly in the Constitutiion is an indication you cannot be taken seriously. The Frramers did not go around defining the laws of nature in the Constitution. Natural law was observed to exist as it was recognized in llegal treatises, coomon-laws embracing the natural law principles, and in court decisions incorporating statements of natural law.

The are numerous Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision describing the application of the natural born citizen, all of which have been discussed as infinitum on Freerepublic. I’m certainly not going to spend hours gathering them together for the purpose of this simple post. If you so desire, you can look them up yourself and we can debate the merits on the respective threads discussing thos specific cases.

Yopu might also consult the various legal dictionaries and general purpose dictionaries to see their definitions for such terms as “natural”, “natural parents”, and so forth. When you do so, please note how the definitions are careful to note how natural law is the opposite of manmade statutory law. Sir edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 cited earlier authorities to note how manmade law “datus” made a subject, whereas natural law resulted in a subject born “natus” by nature of the birth in the absence of a manmade act. Calvin’s Case 1608 is of course not the only such sources of the practice of determining natural born citizenship solely in the absence of “datus” statutory laws. In other words, the condescending scorn is wholly inappropriate and entirely unproductive.

If you want to debate the issue sensibly, then debate the specific elements of disagreement. Leave the ridicule and scorn at home. Such behavior will be entirely unimpressive.

Anyone who wants to be prsusive will need to explain how an unnatural manmade law, a statutory law, or the enactment of a public law can be anything other than the exact opposite of a natural law and the opposite of a natural born citizen.
As matters stand now such an endeavor appears to me tantamount to Bill Clinton trying to persuade the court that Fellatio or oral sex is not oral sex.

If you want to debate the issue sensibly, then debate the specific elements of disagreement. Leave the ridicule and scorn at home. Such behavior will be entirely unimpressive.

So, you can't provide any evidence from the US Constitution, Laws passed by Congress or Rulings by the Supreme Court, right?

Maybe a better approach than stating emphatically and declaratively that someone is not eligible based on YOUR interpretation of supporting documents and the thought processes of the Founders, instead of what they chose to write down in the Constitution, might be to state that it is something that needs to be clarified by Congress and the Supreme Court.

But let's be clear, according to US Law and the US Constitution, as of today, Ted Cruz is eligible to be POTUS.