2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Admiral Yi]

Carter's the one that looks like he had the shit kicked out of him the most.  And he only had one term.

[DGuller]

Those rabbits are surprisingly strong.

[alfred russel]

Also, almost a decade has gone by.

It looks like he has aged 20 years, not 10.

The dude is 54. He looks really good for his age. Part of the issue may be he looked early 30s when he was 47.

[Razgovory]

Those rabbits are surprisingly strong.

Shame the same can't be said for our choppers back then.

[DGuller]

 

[Tonitrus]

I wonder about the Languish law-talkers take on this Washington Post op-ed: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president

By Mary Brigid McManamon January 12
Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University's Delaware Law School.

Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it." The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one's country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the "father of the Constitution," stated, "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.

Some of the Republican presidential candidates are going after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), saying his birthplace could count against him in a presidential election. Here are the facts. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the power to naturalize an alien — that is, Congress may remove an alien's legal disabilities, such as not being allowed to vote. But Article II of the Constitution expressly adopts the legal status of the natural-born citizen and requires that a president possess that status. However we feel about allowing naturalized immigrants to reach for the stars, the Constitution must be amended before one of them can attain the office of president. Congress simply does not have the power to convert someone born outside the United States into a natural-born citizen.

Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.


In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president. They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former solicitors general Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.

First, although Katyal and Clement correctly declare that the Supreme Court has recognized that common law is useful to explain constitutional terms, they ignore that law. Instead, they rely on three radical 18th-century British statutes. While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law. The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory. The then-new statutes were a revolutionary departure from that law.


Second, the authors appropriately ask the question whether the Constitution includes the common-law definition or the statutory approach. But they fail to examine any U.S. sources for the answer. Instead, Katyal and Clement refer to the brand-new British statutes as part of a "longstanding tradition" and conclude that the framers followed that law because they "would have been intimately familiar with these statutes." But when one reviews all the relevant American writings of the early period, including congressional debates, well-respected treatises and Supreme Court precedent, it becomes clear that the common-law definition was accepted in the United States, not the newfangled British statutory approach.

Third, Katyal and Clement put much weight on the first U.S. naturalization statute, enacted in 1790. Because it contains the phrase "natural born," they infer that such citizens must include children born abroad to American parents. The first Congress, however, had no such intent. The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them. Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, only that they should "be considered as" such. Finally, as soon as Madison, then a member of Congress, was assigned to redraft the statute in 1795, he deleted the phrase "natural born," and it has never reappeared in a naturalization statute.


When discussing the meaning of a constitutional term, it is important to go beyond secondary sources and look to the law itself. And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States.

[derspiess]

[The Minsky Moment]

I wonder about the Languish law-talkers take on this Washington Post op-ed: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

It's a bunch of malarkey.

There is one thing that is sort of true in it.  Under the common law of England, as described by Blackstone, "natural" allegiance to a monarch is based on the place of birth. But the common law on this point was modified by statute.  And so Blackstone Commentaries go on to say that because of statutory enactment over the years, a person born overseas to a English father is a "natural born" subject of England.   The equivalent statute in the US is section 1401 of title 8, which sets forth who is deemed a US citizen at birth.  It includes all persons born in the US, as well as all those born to a US citizen parent (with some conditions).  The statute makes no distinction between those two - they both have exactly the same legal status.

Blackstone's commentaries distinguish between natural born subjects and subjects who are naturalized.  Under English law, a natural born subject could have that status either by common law or by statute.  "statutory natural born subjects" have the same legal status as those born in English dominions.  Again, carrying over that concept to the US, the relevant distinction is between those who are citizens at the moment of birth under section 1401, and those who are not and thus require naturalization.   Blackstone does not recognize some mysterious third class of subjects who are neither natural born nor require naturalization, and neither does US law.

Guess it goes to show legal history is too important to be left to the law professors.

[Syt]

Why would you even want that job? Obama in 2009 and now....

Atlantic used this image from the SotU Address:

[Valmy]

I know. The whole point was that some foreign King or whatever couldn't come over and be elected President not that they were concerned where somebody was born would impact the Republic somehow with their vile foreign values.

[MadImmortalMan]

The first several presidents were born in English territory, not the United States. 

[Valmy]

The first several presidents were born in English territory, not the United States. 

Everybody before the first true American President: Martin Van Buren.

I think they accounted for that somehow.

[HisMajestyBOB]

The first several presidents were born in English territory, not the United States. 

Everybody before the first true American President: Martin Van Buren.

I think they accounted for that somehow.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So if you were a citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, you're still eligible to be President even though you're not a natural born citizen.

Just hope that no one finds your phylactery.

[MadImmortalMan]

But...how could they have been a resident for 14 years when the country didn't even exist that long?

[The Brain]

In a strict legal sense there are no US citizens.