US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
What part of the constitution does it say anything about someone's mom?

National Born Citizen.

Constitution doesn't really define it, but it's accepted that those who meet the legal requirements for US citizenship is a 'natural born citizen'.

Cruz's mum is a citizen of US, ergo...when Cruz was born in Calgary, Canuckland he's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mum.

**Tannhauser42**

whembly wrote:
'.

Cruz's mum is a citizen of US, ergo...when Cruz was born in Calgary, Canuckland he's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mum.

But not by the originalist philosophy of interpreting the Constitution.

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:
if one is not an originalist, one is not a suitable judge.

If they can't simply interpret the law.

These statements are oxymoronic.

Plus, Whembly keeps conveniently ignoring the fact that an originalist approach to the Constitution also means Ted Cruz could not be President. So, yeah, originalist only when it's convenient for the Republicans.

How do you figure that? His mum was born in the US...

At the time of writing, a natural born citizen was accepted and defined by common law solely as someone born within the borders of the nation. I've already linked to this at least once, if not twice.

Not really.

Here's a great discussion from Harvardlawreview:

"On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”1×
1. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.
All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×
2. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) (2012); Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 303, 66 Stat. 163, 236–37; Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, 48 Stat. 797.
Show More

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials ]clearly indicate that a “natural born Citizen” means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings. The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×
3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.4×
4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.

As to the British practice, laws in force in the 1700s recognized that children born outside of the British Empire to subjects of the Crown were subjects themselves and explicitly used “natural born” to encompass such children.5×
5. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655–72 (1898).
These statutes provided that children born abroad to subjects of the British Empire were “natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever.”6×
6. 7 Ann., c. 5, § 3 (1708); see also British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
The Framers, of course, would have been intimately familiar with these statutes and the way they used terms like “natural born,” since the statutes were binding law in the colonies before the Revolutionary War. They were also well documented in Blackstone’s Commentaries,7×
7. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *354–63.
a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution.

No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 8×
8. Ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103 (repealed 1795).
provided 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . . . .”9×
9. Id. at 104 (emphasis omitted).
The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.10×
10. See Christina S. Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 371 (2000/01).
Show More

The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.11×
11. See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point. But Congress eliminated that differential treatment of citizen mothers and fathers before any of the potential candidates in the current presidential election were born. Thus, in the relevant time period, and subject to certain residency requirements, children born abroad of a citizen parent were citizens from the moment of birth, and thus are “natural born Citizens.”

The original meaning of “natural born Citizen” also comports with what we know of the Framers’ purpose in including this language in the Constitution. The phrase first appeared in the draft Constitution shortly after George Washington received a letter from John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the United States, suggesting:

[W]hether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a . . . strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.12×

As recounted by Justice Joseph Story in his famous Commentaries on the Constitution, the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause was thus to “cut[] off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interpose[] a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections.”13×
13. 3 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1473, at 333 (1833).
Show More
The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace. Indeed, John Jay’s own children were born abroad while he served on diplomatic assignments, and it would be absurd to conclude that Jay proposed to exclude his own children, as foreigners of dubious loyalty, from presidential eligibility.14×
14. See Michael Nelson, Constitutional Qualifications for President, 17 Presidential Stud. Q. 383, 396 (1987).
Show More

While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.15×
15. See Monica Langley, Ted Cruz, Invoking Reagan, Angers GOP Colleagues But Wins Fans Elsewhere, Wall St. J. (Apr. 18, 2014, 11:36 PM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303873604579494001552603692.
Show More
Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a “natural born Citizen” even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.16×
16. See Michael Dobbs, John McCain’s Birthplace, Wash. Post: Fact Checker (May 20, 2008, 6:00 AM), http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html [http://perma.cc/5DKV-C7VE].

Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth.17×
17. See, e.g., Laurence H. Tribe & Theodore B. Olson, Opinion Letter, Presidents and Citizenship, 2 J.L. 509 (2012).
Show More
Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCain’s candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate unanimously agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was “inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘natural born Citizen.’”18×
18. S. Res. 511, 110th Cong. (2008).
And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 1964,19×
19. See Bart Barnes, Barry Goldwater, GOP Hero, Dies, Wash. Post, May 30, 1998, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater30.htm [http://perma.cc/K2MG-3PZL].
Show More
and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in 1968.20×
20. See David E. Rosenbaum, George Romney Dies at 88; A Leading G.O.P. Figure, N.Y. Times, July 27, 1995, http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/27/obituaries/george-romney-dies-at-88-a-leading-gop-figure.html.
Show More

There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
whembly wrote:
'.

Cruz's mum is a citizen of US, ergo...when Cruz was born in Calgary, Canuckland he's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mum.

But not by the originalist philosophy of interpreting the Constitution.

Incorrect. See above.

**Tannhauser42**

Try again, Whembly. Quoting laws and legalese written AFTER the writing of the Constitution as justification is in complete contradiction to the nature of originalism. Simply put, you're not an originalist, after all.

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Try again, Whembly. Quoting laws and legalese written AFTER the writing of the Constitution as justification is in complete contradiction to the nature of originalism. Simply put, you're not an originalist, after all.

I don't think you took the time to read this:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Please do so and you'll see why it's an originalist take to view that:

the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.

Therefore, the originalist (and textualist!) interpretation was that Cruz is unquestioningly “natural born Citizen” by it's common definition at the time of the Constitution's genesis.

**Tannhauser42**

I'll say it again, you are not, after all, an originalist.

**whembly**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'll say it again, you are not, after all, an originalist.

Define 'an originalist' then...

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
What part of the constitution does it say anything about someone's mom?

National Born Citizen.

Constitution doesn't really define it, but it's accepted that those who meet the legal requirements for US citizenship is a 'natural born citizen'.

Cruz's mum is a citizen of US, ergo...when Cruz was born in Calgary, Canuckland he's a natural born citizen by virtue of his mum.

There's interesting commentary that he's not a natural born citizen actually. The clause was put into effect it keeps immigrants from becoming President.
Moot point though as Cruz aint going to be Pres. B movie villain, sure, but not Pres.

**whembly**

Just saw on CNN that stated something like this across the banner:

Jake Tapper: Newt Gingrich is saying that Trump isn't really interested in 'Draining the swamp' anymore

Oo

Spoiler:

**Frazzled**

Agreed with Whembly. He never was. He IS the swamp.

**Vash108**

We draining the swamp yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

**reds8n**

Vash108 wrote:
We draining the swamp yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

..bored already from the sounds of it.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/21/506378085/gingrich-says-trump-must-address-business-conflicts-soon-urges-monitors?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=movies&utm_term=artsculture&utm_content=2049

**whembly**

Vash108 wrote:
We draining the swamp yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

Awesome.

ISPs are not Title II 'common carriers'. If you're advocating for greater regulatory reviews, push Congress to pass specific ISP regulations.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Just saw on CNN that stated something like this across the banner:

Jake Tapper: Newt Gingrich is saying that Trump isn't really interested in 'Draining the swamp' anymore

Of course he isn't. Have you heard him talk about it on his "victory tour?" Watch his speech in Des Moines from December 9, it's really something else. He straight up tells his supporters that he didn't like the phrase but said it anyways. Then people liked it so he said it again and then, and I quote, he started "saying it like [he] meant it."

He did the same thing about "locking" Hillary up as well. He told his supporters in Michigan that it "played great for the election," but now that he won, "we don't care anymore."

**whembly**

reds8n wrote:

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/21/506378085/gingrich-says-trump-must-address-business-conflicts-soon-urges-monitors?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=movies&utm_term=artsculture&utm_content=2049

IMO, this doesn't go far enough:

Gingrich suggests that a panel of respected experts with "total access" regularly monitor Trump's businesses and tell the president: "Don't go over these bounds. This has to be fixed; that can't be done that way."

I can't imagine what would be a good solution though, as this is unique in the modern era...

You know he's not going to sell everything (it'll be viewed as a firesale and they'd lose feth ton of money).

And, it's understandable that he wouldn't want to get rid of his assets that he spent a lifetime building...

Maybe turn over the operation to an outsider to run the Trump company? Mitt Romney (or someone like him) takes total control for the duration of Drumpf's presidency, plus the experts that Gingrich suggests?

**Vash108**

I feel if you are going to run for the president and lead the country you need to make some sacrifices. So far I haven't seen much.

**whembly**

Vash108 wrote:
I feel if you are going to run for the president and lead the country you need to make some sacrifices. So far I haven't seen much.

That... and the amount of "soft target" that Trump's assets exposed worldwide is something I feel is vastly under-reported.

From physical properties, legal exposure domestically/internationally and even the markets.

**djones520**

So I remember some time back in here we were discussing the "rash" of racial attacks that occurred in the days following the election. The two highest profile being a college campus where students waving a Trump flag were spitting on swearing at minorities, and an attack in New York where a women was assualted, had her hijab ripped off, etc...

Well, turns out both of those never happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/21/pro-trump-students-cleared-in-wellesley-incident.html?refresh=true

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/muslim-woman-reported-trump-supporter-attack-made-story-article-1.2910944

It's hard to fight real racism, when we're constantly having to chase down reports of fake.

**Co'tor Shas**

Vash108 wrote:
We draining the swamp yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

Because profits trump people every time in the Republican elite.

**Ustrello**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
We draining the swamp yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

Because profits trump people every time in the Republican elite.

Which is why they so vehemently deny climate change. Gotta get dem oil moniez

**Vash108**

Ustrello wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
We draining the swamp yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

Because profits trump people every time in the Republican elite.

Which is why they so vehemently deny climate change. Gotta get dem oil moniez

He did appoint the an Exxon CEO Tillerson for SoS

**Ustrello**

Vash108 wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
We draining the swamp yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

Because profits trump people every time in the Republican elite.

Which is why they so vehemently deny climate change. Gotta get dem oil moniez

He did appoint the an Exxon CEO Tillerson for SoS

Which was even terrible for republicans so that says a lot about the man

**Co'tor Shas**

It doesn't help the most of the Republican congressmen agaist net neutrality don't even know what it is. They just listen to the ISPs, and then make up gak like "Obamacare for the internet".

**Ustrello**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
It doesn't help the most of the Republican congressmen agaist net neutrality don't even know what it is. They just listen to the ISPs, and then make up gak like "Obamacare for the internet".

Gutting net neutrality may lose them the mid terms. Everyone loves the internet and hates slow internet and having to pay more for it

**Co'tor Shas**

Ustrello wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
It doesn't help the most of the Republican congressmen agaist net neutrality don't even know what it is. They just listen to the ISPs, and then make up gak like "Obamacare for the internet".

Gutting net neutrality may lose them the mid terms. Everyone loves the internet and hates slow internet and having to pay more for it

I really want another SOPA/PIPA level gak storm. I'm not concerned so much about mid-terms, I just don't want them to go through with it.

**Frazzled**

An excellent article on the White Working Class and what they feel their issues are.

A nice paragraph quote:

Most progressive explorations of the white working class’s rightward shift frame it as a baffling mystery: How can these non-wealthy Americans vote against their obvious (to us) economic self-interest? The usual explanation is that conservatives’ mastery of “hot button” culture war issues and racial anxiety serve to distract and divert the white working-class voters from recognizing their “true” interests. The obvious solution, then, is to somehow increase the salience of economic issues, perhaps by offering a sharper contrast to conservatives’ economic agenda.

However, our focus-group conversations suggest that it would be a mistake to project this familiar ideological template onto these moderates. In fact, they are considerably less culturally conservative than the stereotype suggests. White working-class moderates do perceive a decline of moral values in our nation, but the values these working people fear losing include progressive values as well as conservative ones. Many are disturbed by what they perceive as a rise in selfishness and lack of concern for others, calling for more “compassion” and more support for those who need it, especially veterans and the disabled. The issues traditionally at the center of the nation’s “culture wars”—abortion, homosexuality, drugs—come up only sporadically, while many express a “live and let live” attitude toward America’s changing social mores.
Advertisement

Survey data confirm that these voters have a very different cultural outlook than conservatives. For example, 67 percent of white non-college conservatives report being very concerned that “many government programs violate my personal moral values,” but just 25 percent of the moderates share this concern.

If the moderates are not as culturally conservative as usually assumed, then why aren’t they already in the progressive camp? It would seem that without that roadblock, their economic self-interest would naturally lead them to the left. But that is not what we see.

The fundamental problem is that white working-class voters do not perceive progressives (or Democrats) to better represent their economic concerns. Polling showed that voters overall divided fairly evenly on whether Donald Trump (46 percent) or Hillary Clinton (42 percent) would do a better job of dealing with the economy, yet Trump enjoyed a 27-point advantage (57 percent to 30 percent) on this question among non-college whites, and an enormous 42-point advantage among non-college white men. This result cannot be explained by Trump’s intermittent economic populism. In 2015, by 73 percent to 27 percent, white working-class voters said that the federal government, far from helping them, had made it harder for them to achieve their goals, and by a 4-to-1 ratio said that the federal government’s economic impact was negative.

So the presumption that the cultural or religious values of white working-class voters are superseding their economic priorities fundamentally misrepresents the reality. In our focus groups, few moderates articulated any sense that Democrats have an economic agenda or philosophy that would help them, or are animated by concern for people like them. While they didn’t trust Republicans either, we heard nothing suggesting that Democrats are even seeking to improve economic conditions or economic opportunities for them, or that those outcomes would result if only Democrats could just implement their agenda. Even if white working-class voters agreed to base their votes entirely on economic concerns, it is not at all clear Democrats would prevail.

To be clear, we saw no evidence that these voters have rejected a progressive economic policy agenda. As confirmed in numerous polls, many elements of that agenda—higher taxes on the wealthy, reining in Wall Street, ensuring paid leave for workers—are popular. But these voters’ somewhat abstract desire for more progressive economic policies is undercut and overwhelmed by their deeply negative view of government, which includes a strong aversion to spending and government intervention in the economy. While they are economic progressives, in important respects they are also fiscal conservatives.

Given that Democrats are seen as the party of government and Republicans the reverse, the reflexive aversion among working-class moderates to “government spending” has real political consequences. Indeed, our participants’ single greatest worry about the Democrats is that they “favor too much government spending,” eclipsing by far the number who feel that Democrats “don’t respect my values” or that Democratic economic policies “don’t help me.” As some of our focus group participants commented:

**Co'tor Shas**

That sounds about right. And if the D's and progressives hope to win, they need to learn about messaging and how to talk politics. And message control as well, try and fight the "Democrats want to spend your hard-earned money on special intertsts" thing that comes from the R's.

**Kilkrazy**

It is interesting that it is all "white" working class, seemingly confirming that the racial divide in the USA is more important than the class divide.

**Co'tor Shas**

I think that's a matter of focus. D's have focused very heavily on the working class and poor black communities. It works as long as they have someone who can bring out the general voters as well (such as Obama or Bill Clinton), but with someone who is disliked generally (HRC), not so well.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
It is interesting that it is all "white" working class, seemingly confirming that the racial divide in the USA is more important than the class divide.

It's more that the nature of how both parties engage in identity politics... the "white working class" started voting like an identity group.

However, Co'tor's is probably closer to the truth than that. Meaning that those working class whites were assumed to consistently vote democrats, such that they were neglected.