* BREAKING: Cruz' eligibility going to court !

You appear to hold opinions outside of your knowledge because this is a false statement.

A natural right refers to an inalienable/unalienable right of the person and not to an inviolable right of the person. The "natural/inalienable/unalienable rights of the person" are not dependent upon law. Laws, including the Supreme Law of the Land (i.e. US Constitution) can violate the "natural/inalienable/unalienable rights of the person" but they cannot deny the existance of these rights. In point of fact the US Constitution establishes in the 9th Amendment that the "unenumerated rights of the person" are protected without any laws that define them or establish them. While you may disagree with the fact that our laws don't establish or protect our "natural/inalienable/unalienable rights" the US Constitution explicitly establishes that fact.

As used in Article II of the US Constitution the phrase "natural born citizen" refers to the "natural right of citizenship" of the person and a natural/inalienable right can never be dependent upon another person. The citizenship of the parent has no bearing on the natural/inalienable right of citizenship of the child. You may not understand that because of a lack of knowledge about the "natural/inalienable/unalienable rights of the person" but igonance of the subject does not provide a foundation for a legitimate opinion.

Of course a person would still be a natural born citizen of wherever they were born without any statutory laws or government. If a person is born in the Rocky Mountains then they're a natural born citizen of the Rocky Mountains. It doesn't matter who their parents are or where their parents came from because natural born citizenship is unique to every individual. Natural/inalienable/unalienable rights are not transferrable so the natural/inalienable/unalienable right of citizenship of the parent(s) cannot be transferred to the child. Where you're born, even in the absence of government and law, establishes your natural born citizenship and government can either acknowledge this natural born citizenship or deny it but it doesn't change it.

I suggest you spend some time studying the natural rights of the person because, at least to me, it's quite obvious that you haven't.

 

No it does not. The law grants citizenship to a child of a US citizen born overseas under certain circumstance while denying it in other cases. Just because the parent happens to be a US citizen, even if they're a natural born citizen, doesn't mean that this automatically grants US citizenship to the child.

Case in point is that there are an idenfied group of pregnant Chinese women that come to the United States on temporary visas to have their child. Because the child meets the criteria of "born in the United States... and subject to the juridiction thereof" they are natural born citizens of the United States. The parent(s) upon the birth of the child return to China to raise the child to adulthood. The future children of that "natural born citizen" of the United Statess, assuming they don't return to the United States, will NOT be granted US citizenship under our naturalization laws. The citizenship granted to the children of US Citizens born abroad is dependent upon a residency requirement for the parent. If they don't reside in the US for at least a year then the US citizenship of the child is denied under our naturalization law.

We also have documented cases, such as the case of Leeland Davidson, where both of his parents were US citizens but he was born in Canada and for over 90 years lived as an undocumented alien in the United States. He even served in the US Navy during WW II but he was still not a US citizen even though he thought he was. He want not granted "birthright" citizenship because his parents never applied for him to become a US citizen. It isn't "automatic" nor is it a "right" but instead our naturalization laws allowed him to become a US citizen once he applied for US citizenship. If it was "birthright" citizenship then it wouldn't have required the submission of a naturalization request form that had to be reviewed and approved by the Immigration and Naturalization office to secure his US citizenship. Up until Leeland Davidson submitted that form, and had it approved, he was a Canadian citizen living in the United States illegally without documentation. Even after receiving US citizenship he remained a natural born Canadian citizen and had dual citizenship.

Ted Cruz was a natural born Canadian and had dual citizenship as both a Canadian and a US citizen for virtually all of his life. Ted Crux was a natural born Canadian and a naturalized US citizen.

 

Once agian people need to be reminded that while the lawsuit was filed the first issue for the court is to determine the "standing" of the plaintiffs and based upon all of the prior "birther" cases the standing is going to be denied. Based upon what I understand the only person that would have standing in the case of Ted Cruz's citizenship is Ted Cruz and only if he were denied a place on the ballot for president because that's the only situation where Ted Cruz could logically argue he's harmed by not being recognized as a natural born citizen of the United States.

Except for the qualification for the Office of the President there's virtually no difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen with only one insignificant exception. If a person commits fraud to become a naturalized citizen then that citizenship can be revoked while the citizenship of a natural born citizen cannot be revoked.

 

it's a factual statement. Rights are an entirely human construct. And we only have those rights which we have agreed upon and are enshrined into law.

which is a man made concept.

there are no rights that exist outside of the law.

which merely reflect a political philosophy. you can't point to anything anywhere listing these "inalienable/unalienable" rights. They are simply whatever enough people decide they are, and codified into law.

demonstrably false. If the child of a diplomat for instance is born on US soil, that child is not a citizen by virtue of it's parents status.

I just demonstrated there is no such thing as 'natural/inalienable/unalienable" rights. They are a human construct and political philosophy.

you can't be a citizen without an underlying government. What an absurd idea.

already demonstrated otherwise.
.

of course it changes it. citizenship is a legal status, and requires a legal framework.

I'd be more than happy to. Please direct me to where I can find a list of all of these natural rights, and where they came from

 

I suppose I should expect many people would be unable to comprehend the above.

Many cannot even grasp the fact that this has nothing to do with Trump.

 

Yes, because enacting a law when it's already a Constitutional right raises questions.

 

Did some digging and a bit of cut and paste.

Mary McManamon, Professor of Law at Widener University School of Law says that aside from children born to foreign ambassadors or to hostile soldiers on U.S. territory, both of whom owe allegiance to a different sovereign, a natural born citizen must be born in the United States.

Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School agrees with Professor McManamon that "natural born" means "native born" and therefore the wording of the Constitution "does not permit his (Ted Cruz's) candidacy.

Professor Robert Clinton at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University is also of the opinion that "natural born citizen" means "born in the United States."

University of Chicago Professor Eric Posner also concludes that "natural born citizen" means a "person born in the United States".

Former Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, concludes the same.

So who knows the correct answer? only Congress or the Supreme Court can make that determination