Bio not provided
If Ted Cruz is a citizen of the United States, then he is either one by birth, or by naturalization.As I understand the facts and applicable version of the Naturalization Act, Ted is entitled to claim to be a citizen, although born in Canada, because his mother was a citizen and had resided in the USA sufficiently recently in time to confer status as a citizen on a child born to her on foreign soil. If that is the case, then he has, in fact, been naturalized by Congress, which confers on the foreign born children of many US citizens, the status of citizen -- so long as the parents meet relevant qualifications.If Ted is a citizen via naturalization by Congress, then he is NOT an NBC (natural born citizen). Congress does have power to provide a "uniform rule of Naturalization." But in no passage or clause of the Constitution is the power to confer NBC status, or even to define it, granted to Congress.As for the rest, birther arguments that would deny citizenship to "anchor babies," for example, because of the foreign citizenship of their parents are wrong because they fail to account for the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.If, as I have concluded, that jus soli, not jus sanguinus, governed citizenship questions (at least prior to the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification), then Cruz is a naturalized citizen under the Naturalization Act, capable of claiming that status by virtue of his mother's qualification under it.
5 days, 12 hours ago on The Top Ten “Birther” arguments against Ted Cruz, and why they are completely wrong
@clotworthyi @JimHenderson @gcomeau @wbcoleman Well, they won't use the filibuster on judicial and administrative nominees unless the new majority GRANTS that right as a matter of legislative grace to the minority.If McConnell does that, then he will alienate the conservative base.
2 months, 3 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120131/harry-reid-should-copy-mitch-mcconnells-use-filibuster
@Capricatony So true. Republicans could never find gentlemen on the other side of the aisle with which to make them. Perhaps if they had gone snooting up over at the Monacle with Teddy K and Chris D?
@gcomeau @mrjimm So I have read the Senate's Rules on Cloture, filibusters, and precedents of the Senate regarding the same. Fact is, you cannot ABUSE a rule by using that VERY rule by its very own TERMS. And please, let's not ignore the Democrats' history of filibuster and blue-slipping Bush's nominees.
@gcomeau @wbcoleman Weird. I lived through the last decade. In fact, because Democrats were persistently employing the filibuster to block Bush judicial nominees, I researched and wrote a monograph for my employer on ending the filibuster. Democrats loved the filibuster before they hated the filibuster before . . . .
@hijodejuan And the difference is?Nothing at all. Once you discover than one Scot is not wearing underwear under his kilt, you pretty much know the whole story. And once you learn that the judicial filibuster is an unnecessary and unhealthy anachronism, how many more days do you have to go to school?
@hijodejuan Wait, what?"War on women" much?"Racist" much?
"Voter suppression and intimidation" much?The harshness of Republicans? They are like Alfalfa and the Dems are like Butch.
@Capitalist Infidel And in reply to their rhetorical question, No, the filibuster is not UNconstitutional. It's simply a bad idea in present conditions.
Ummmm, sure, go ahead and try it.For my part, as the filibuster is merely a Senate Rule, the Republicans can demonstrate their will and intention to govern by completing the process HARRY REID started when he deployed the NEUTRON BOMB version of the nuclear option by eliminating the filibuster of judicial and administrative nominees. The Democrats did this once before. It is a precedent of the Chair and the Senate.
You have made a leap in logic unsupported by the text of the Constitution.Congress has plenary authority to provide a uniform rule for naturalization, to be sure.But your assertion that Congress can enact laws defining "Citizenship" is unsupported by constitutional text. Naturalization is the process of making one who WAS NOT a citizen into one. But citizenship is acquired by means other than naturalization, namely by right of birth. Congress has no constitutional warrant to regulate the terms or conditions of citizenship for natural born citizens.
8 months, 4 weeks ago on Defining "Natural Born Citizen"
I'd be happier to read about States taking the feds on by the horns using nullification if the States were not so often the first to attack "The People" when they, in turn, exercise nullification through the historic, time-honored and lawful practice of jury nullification, whereby the people of a particular community reject the lawfulness of a state or federal law in its application to particular individuals in particular cases.
2 years, 2 months ago on The Establishment Hates Nullification