Timeline for What's the most crucial issue when deciding Senator Cruz's citizenship?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2016 at 17:14 | comment | added | phoog | Well there is equal protection, which can be used to assert gender equality, but in determining blood parentage there is a legitimate difference between men and women. This is typically the basis for different rules for passing nationality to offspring. Until recent years it was impossible in most cases to prove paternity, while maternity is and always could be easily established by an eyewitness to a child's birth. | |
| Feb 23, 2016 at 9:29 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @phoog Interesting. There seems to be no explicit "equality of all humans" provision in the constitution, only in the Decalration of Independence, but there is was found self-evident; al least within the limited historical field of view (no blacks, no women). Is there any doubt though that it is one of the underlying constitutional principles, even if it is never explicitly laid out? So much so that even judges confuse it as part of the constitution? | |
| Feb 23, 2016 at 5:43 | comment | added | phoog | @PeterA.Schneider "but didn't it say 'fathers'? That would be plain unconstitutional today": the ERA never passed, so it's not necessary under the constitution for citizenship law to treat the children of male and female US citizens equally. | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 8:16 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @StephanBranczyk Well, there is a discussion. The law you cite has been superseded by a law which doesn't contain the wording any longer. Establishing context is an indispensible part of interpretation. No doubt the law of 1790 is part of the context, too, and points in the right direction (but didn't it say "fathers"? That would be plain unconstitutional today, so we may have to interpret that as well in modern light). | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 8:09 | history | edited | Peter - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 576 characters in body
|
| Feb 18, 2016 at 7:07 | comment | added | Stephan Branczyk | Actually, there is no need to speculate as to the intent. If you ask me, their intent is spelled out pretty clearly already. The Naturalization Act of 1790 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 . . . .” | |
| Feb 18, 2016 at 1:20 | comment | added | WBT | The 14-year residency requirement is part of this too. | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 17:32 | history | edited | Peter - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Feb 17, 2016 at 11:40 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 17, 2016 at 13:25 | |||||
| Feb 17, 2016 at 11:39 | history | answered | Peter - Reinstate Monica | CC BY-SA 3.0 |