Posted on 01/16/2016 3:43:22 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Stinkin’ Canadian. Dang feriner, conspirin’ to come over here and replace our delicious, crispy, all-American bacon with that floppy, communist, Canadian crap. And Budweiser? Like your Budweiser? Forget it. If he’s elected, it’s nothing but that skunky Molson swill for you, my friend. Football? Banned. It’s all sticks, pucks and missing teeth from here on out. A wall on the southern border? ISIS? TB-infected Mesicans and Central Americans? Ha! A mere diversion. Trump needs to build that wall up north to keep commie Canucks like Ted Cruz out of the White House.
He’s gaining on The Donald, you see. And so finally the question of his eligibility to serve as our 45th U.S. president is fair game. Oh, sure, Ted grew up in Houston, Texas. And, oh, sure, his mother, who happened to be over the border in Canada when Ted was born, is a U.S citizen, herself born in Wilmington, Delaware, which, oh, sure, automatically makes Ted a U.S. citizen from birth. But, hey! I, the guys down at the Elks Lodge with their pocket constitutions and whatnot, and Donald Trump, who, with his own political self-interests in mind has suddenly flip-flopped on the subject, all disagree. Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States based upon our extreme-minority take on the phrase, “Natural-born citizen.â€
For that matter, and based upon our own arbitrary and narrow definition – I know, it’s not defined in the Constitution, but derpity derp derp anyway – some might suggest that eight of the first nine U.S. presidents should have been ineligible to serve as well. Since they were all born as British citizens in the British colonies, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et al., should have been, one and all, constitutionally ineligible.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
We can say we are supporters of Hillary (which is BS) and go print poop as well.
Could be a DNC or RNC soldier doing their thing.
Rather than prove he’s eligible, he continues practicing his college debating skills.
He can run to avoid, but eventually this issue will need to be resolved. The longer it goes, the worse it becomes for CRuz.
0 was by his own admission born in Kenya as noted in the biographical sketch he used for 16 years.
The problem with Tribe is he doesn’t seem to realize once he opens that door to reinterpretation of the Constitution, there are no boundaries. There are no checks. There is no meaning that can’t be reinterpreted. The Bill of Rights no longer means what it means. Plain language can be twisted into the very opposite of what it says.
That’s exactly what I think. And I guess I don’t care if the issue dragging on hurts Cruz since he’s my second pick. But the nation really needs resolution on this. We need to stop people running who aren’t eligible.
We got millions of anchor babies growing up who will think they can be president. They can’t, but the kids of those anchor babies can. They will have another generation to absorb American values.
There is always that possibility.
No, they never resolved any of the cases on merits. They might have taken that approach if they had, but they didn't get that far. They rejected them all on either grounds of standing, or because the issue had been sufficiently tweeted, or because of procedural issues such as (It's too early to sue because Inelligible hasn't been elected yet, and it's too late to sue because Inelligible has been seated.)
‘...but it is not productive to have to defend it against attacks that are intentionally dishonest and intended to divert attention away from the real issues.’
That’s politics.
But I am actually being honest. I frequently posted during the Obama administration that it would be insane of the Founding Fathers to permit the King of England to knock up a whore from the US, groom the bastard to be President of the US, and be eligible. Never made sense to me since the original intent of natural born status is to protect us from ‘Etruscan kings’ and other foreign powers.
‘Everything I write is intended to add to, not detract from, clarity of thought on the issues.’
I agree. You are clear about your opinion regarding ‘equal opportunity’ and modernization of natuaral born status. I would support a constitutional amendment to include Cruz if the bar is much higher than it currently is for ALL candidates. Such as Hillsdale studies.
What a mess!
Just come out and say you’re a Trump supporter. Why hide it?
I’ve said it many times. I was one of the earliest trump supporters on this board.
And it’s so obvious in the post you responded to, I really shouldn’t have to say it.
You Trumpsters jumping on the GOPe bandwagon are a hoot! You all act like you’re strict constitutionalists but always hide the fact you’re Trumpsters.
The Trumpster’s mother was born where?
See tagline, cuz I’m not hiding who I support.
Not that I can see in the text, in that it confers citizenship without exclusion; i.e., it doesn't say a person of American parentage born outside the US is specifically not a citizen, leaving that point open to a matter of Natural Law. For any more than that, one would have to consult the Congressional Globe (the Congressional Record of its day) for debating points and such.
For all who are interested, the dissenting opinion in US v. Wong Kim Ark is a very impressive analysis of British and American law as regards birthright citizenship. The opinion begins with this very question.
All of this would be moot if we had just managed to conquer Canada in the War of 1812.
The easiest way for Cruz to settle this would be to get hold of the guy who produced Obama's birth certificate (when Trump was pounding away at that issue) and get him to produce one showing that Cruz was born in Honolulu too.
I provided both the original and my 'updated' version and underlined the changes implied by the 14th Amendment and modern practice.
Original intent is ‘father’. Vattel did not dispute that.
Vattel WROTE that. The Framers didn't. It remains a conclusion, not a presumptive fact, that this is 'original intent'. The Law of Nations is not referenced in the Constitution as the font of all wisdom. It is merely an important part of the historical context, and that's all. It is not part of the Constitution.
Nor did the 14th Amendment enumerate anything about natural born status.
I never said that it did.
**Equal protection is not the same as equal opportunity.**
True. Thank God!
Your argument might make more sense if everyone was cooperative, but you need a devil’s advocate to bounce off your points. We can’t expect the Establishment Republicans and Flaky Chief Just-us Roberts to be cooperative, and we certainly can’t expect democrats to be honest or helpful.
All true. I'm just expounding a point of view I think is valid.
I've been pretty consistent on this. I reject any rigid formulaic 17th century definition of natural born citizen unless the advocates of this notion can prove that a rigid formulaic definition actually existed and was adopted by consensus by the Framers. I have never seen this accomplished in 15 years of studying this issue.
The widest consensus held was for the primacy of jus sanguinis over jus solis and this is the position of Vattel. I take that as the starting point, not the common law notion of jus solis with an overlay of jus sanguinis. That is one of the royalist notions the Framers were repudiating.
Cruz is misleading
He knows where the pitfall lies
Anyone here bother to read the 1790 act would know too
I suggest all the sound and fury here read the Act
It is the only place Natural Born us mentioned
I’m interested in the truth
As usual most freepers just want to holler
On both sides
Cruz needs to apply for a ruling
The post, #2, you don’t mention Trump at all. So it is NOT “obvious” you support him from your own words. Stop your lying.
As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a "natural born Citizen." The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these "natural born Citizens" who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States.
The question framed to you by this question was not the one I had raised. I didn’t claim at any time that the 14th Amendment had addressed the issue of natural born citizenship.
I suggested that the 14th Amendment effectively ended patrilineage as the sole determinative of bequeathed citizenship, and made women equally able to bequeath citizenship on their children as men.
I’d be interested in your take on this, especially if you are aware of any case law on this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.