Posted on 01/21/2016 5:31:08 AM PST by VitacoreVision
Difference there is in international waters a child would be born without a country. Good thing Maritime law would most likely provide that the ship registry controls citizenship.
The 14th amendment did not add rights, but it did contain language that on its face required that rights afforded to one class of Citizen must apply to all. Rights are afforded to the citizenry as a whole, not parceled out here and there. Certain rights reserved for for men and others while denied to women is profoundly antithetical to any notion of equal protection of the law.
Courts often err.
This court relied on a tortured rationalization in order to assert, as the Court did here, that the 14th Amendment meant that the equal protection of the law did not necessarily apply to any already existing inequality before the law, only to a hypothetical inequality that might be enacted in the future. In other words, at least SOME preexisting inequalities were 'grandfathered' in despite the Amendment making no such provision.
This is an obvious absurdity.
In other words, at least SOME preexisting inequalities were
‘grandfathered’ in despite the Amendment making no such provision.
That is a compelling way of putting it. But it is not absurd to be concerned over those who insist on traditions, no matter how strange they sound. Such as our last names being the father’s.
I’m forward thinking enough to think that Bristol Palin, for example, should have her last name hyphenated. She should be proud of the name, “Palin”. But what will her spouse think?
‘Good thing Maritime law would most likely provide that the ship registry controls citizenship.’
And military bases and embassies. But a US female tourist should not fear her child being born overseas. This should somehow be amended. And congess and state legislatures should be able to agree that so-and-so is patriotic enough to be eligible. Even if it takes a super-majority vote.
Smart here means willing to accept the truth. The NBC issue is a perfect example because it’s not really complicated unless you want it to be.
“Maybe, just maybe, all of this bickering over and investigation into Cruz’s citizenship will lead to evidence of Obama’s lack of it.”
Only with people that cannot grasp that Hawaii is one of the United States, and that Alberta is not.
And military bases and embassies. But a US female tourist should not fear her child being born overseas. This should somehow be amended. And congess and state legislatures should be able to agree that so-and-so is patriotic enough to be eligible. Even if it takes a super-majority vote.
___________________________
I am against a foreign born president. If we need to change the constitution to further define that’s fine.
No, that's the point - In such a case, citizenship is inferred from the parent, and does not normally follow the country of the ship. Especially before modern medicine, when a birth cert was a pretty optional thing.
My point in raising the question is that such a case is a long standing exception to the rule. And rightly so - It would be absurd to say the child was not native born because he was born in transit. Thus the reason for the exceptions. Thus the reason for the further definition by statute. Such a child IS Natural Born.
Change the condition: Late 1800s: A child is born to US parents on Canadian ground in transit between the states and Alaska. What's the difference? Same thing. There are obvious exceptions to 'Born on the Soil'.
‘I am against a foreign born president.’
I can respect that view. But some defectors from Communist Cuba would have made outstanding Presidents.
‘...it’s not really complicated unless you want it to be.’
This is the first time I can empathize with judicial activists. I’ve been scouring and scouring for a strong counter-point who could vindicate Cruz on this. Can’t find one that convinces me.
FRegards ....
I’ve looked into the matter pretty thoroughly and am willing to concede that a child born to a citizen father and a noncitizen mother can be natural born if there are no foreign legal claims upon the child as a result of the mother’s citizenship. Turn it around to a citizen mother and a noncitizen father, and it starts looking more shaky from an Originalist point of view, but given the current realities of citizenship law, if there are no foreign legal claims upon the child as a result of the father’s citizenship, then the result would be the same, practically speaking. The same is true of being born outside US jurisdiction. If the nation where the child is born does not make a citizenship claim upon the child as a result of being born there, then that poses no legal problem for a potential, future President as far as only being subject to US jurisdiction. That appears to me to be the original intent. Whether or not a modern court would rule on these lines is another matter.
‘I am against a foreign born president.’
I can respect that view. But some defectors from Communist Cuba would have made outstanding Presidents.
_____________________________
There is only one job that constitutionally requires Natural Born. It is not a mistake, it is a rational requirement.
Same here. What I find curious about Trump is that he says he'd be doing the public a huge favor by suing Cruz over it, but he doesn't do it.
Trump says he's not in this for himself, he's just trying to do the right thing for everyone. I think he's right that we'd be better off getting this settled sooner rather than later. We're supposed to believe that as President he'd be looking out for all of us, not just himself. But he has the opportunity and is in a unique position to be able to do something for all of us right now and won't.
I still don’t think he’s legitimate.
Like, for example, that marriage traditionally requires one participant from each of the sexes?
Just to demonstrate how far the present day Court has departed from Minor v. Happersett's insistence that the Fourteenth did not create any "new" rights, the very same Fourteenth Amendment that the Court ruled did not require the State of Missouri to honor Mrs. Happersett's right to vote in the same basis as a man, now requires the State of Missouri to allow men to marry men and women to marry women, despite the fact in 1850 Missouri, men and women had no such right. It appears that certain quaint notions held by the Court in Minor v. Happersett have now fallen away.
I don’t think courts should even have the power to determine who is eligible.
Too much power for one thing.
And no one respects them if there is a single arguable hole in their rulings.
Just wistful thinking on my part.
I see these fine patriots who escaped communism and compare them to Obama and other creeps.
But you get the last word on that.
— FRegards ....
Court ruling are FULL of holes and changing interpretations. And if courts don’t have a say in who is eligible, who does? I’m not saying I disagree with you because not only do I thinks courts should stay out of this, they think so too.
So if not to the courts, where do you go for clarity? I think it is to the public, and that is where sovereignty lies.
I think it is because his legal advisors have told him that he has no chance of getting any court to take jurisdiction, and he doesn’t want to come out of this looking churlish.
Do you think Trump has an legitimate reasons to believe the circumstances of his birth would cause Cruz to have divided allegiances?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.