Posted on 08/11/2013 2:54:35 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Potential 2016 presidential contender Donald Trump spoke to ABC's Jonathan Karl Sunday morning and reignited the birther issue that he helped spark back in 2011, questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate and wondering whether Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, was eligible to president. "Was there a birth certificate?" Trump asked. "You tell me. Some people say that was not his birth certificate. I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows. And you don't know, either, Jonathan. You're a smart guy, you don't know, either." "I'm pretty convinced he was born in the United States," Karl said. "Ah! Pretty convinced," Trump said, and rolled over Karl's objections that he was 100% sure Obama was an American citizen. "Pretty sure is not acceptable." Trump made Obama's birth certificate a major issue in his aborted 2012 run for the GOP nomination, ultimately leading to Obama releasing his longform birth certificate. Karl asked Trump if the Canadian-born Cruz was eligible for the office. (Cruz's mother is an American citizen.) "If he was born in Canada, then perhaps not," Trump said. "That will be ironed out. I don't know the circumstances. If he says he was born in Canada, that's his thing."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Draw a circle. This first circle represents all people born in America or on American soil. Draw another circle which overlaps the first circle a little bit. The second circle represents all people born to American citizen parent or parents. The overlapping portion represents the natural born citizens. Now draw a third circle which does not overlap either of the other two circles. This third circle represents naturalized citizens, citizens by statute.
There are at least three classes of citizenship, not two, and probably four, if the subPreme Court were honest and looked at the meanings as held when the Constitution was written. The most exclusive class of citizenship is the overlap of circles one and two.
Sorry but his mother makes him a citizen by statute and not a natural born Citizen. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Name for me, please, the court case that has allowed this issue to be heard on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence that proves eligibility.
In addition, prove that we even have a legal President. I've provided proof many times that we do not have one.
“People used to understand this because they used to actually teach this when they actually taught American History and Civics instead of Social Studies .”
And yet not one person has ever been able to find one example of a Civics text book from any period that supports your view. Why do you think that is?
I’m sorry to say this, but the Congress meeting in official setting is in fact a court. When the Congress allowed the fraudulent bastard boy to be elected by the electoral votes cast, even though he was not Constitutionally eligible, that is a court decision making him legitimate from their ruling. BUT solely from their ruling, not Constitutionally.
Since Mr Cruz was born a US Citizen, he has no requirement to be naturalized and is therefor a natural born citizen.
________________________________________________
In the Constitution there are citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural born citizens. Why would the framers use separate terms to describe these different catagories?
To both Donald Trump AND John McCain: STFU.
The requirements of the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three occur AFTER Congress has accepted the results of the electoral college. When Congress accepts the results, all they have really done is identify who the "President Elect" happens to be. After this time and before the taking of the oath of office, this person named as the "President Elect" must provide proof of eligibility to Congress in order to legally serve as President. If this is not accomplished, Congress is instructed by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three to name a replacement.
Knowing the above, there can never be a condition where there is doubt about the eligibility of a legal President. In this instance, for whatever reason, Congress has twice ignored it's duty under the Constitution in regards to the Twentieth Amendment and there is nothing but doubt. There has been a "failure to qualify" by the President Elect as required by the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three, and thus a usurpation of the office of President.
Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen by the statute you mentioned. The constitution gives Congress the authority to make these laws governing citizenship of anyone who is not a natural born citizen. These statutes are changed from time to time. But, Congress cannot change who is a natural born citizen.
Congress has No authority to make a statute governing the citizenship of a person born in the US of Citizen parents; thus, you have never seen them described in the statutes. The statutes describe all others and how they may obtain citizenship at birth or otherwise.
Aliens who wish to become citizens must go through a naturalization process set up by Congress.
That is why I stated not legitimized by the Constitution. You see my FRiend, America is no longer a place with the rule of law for the Constitution has been and is still being abrogated by the elected scoundrels.
Just print one up with Photoshop and claim it’s legit. If the MSM tries to question it they have to answer Obama’s obviously forged BC.
How about from the pen of the man who "coined the term" in the 18th century and understood by the signers of the Constitution (1787)....and the American populace at the time.
Emmerich de Vattel from the "Law of Nations" (1758).
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Now.....why would this readily understood term from a publication read throughout the civilized world at the time.....magically become known as something else entirely different in a short 29 years?
Think maybe you got old Chet mixed up with Garfield, and McKinley?
There are three types of citizen:
Simple, isn't it!
No, Cruz does not meet the requirements, nor does Soetoro/Obama.
I’ll second that. :-)
Which Civics text book used to teach American kids is that from?
What is the definition of a dual citizen and why would Cruz not be a dual citizen both of the US and Canada.?
I guess you didn't read the post.
It appears that you would rather reject history and Constitutional reality than to give up your desire to somehow prove to everyone that this Constitutional precept was not taught in schools 60+ years ago.
Do I have that correct?
You're just going to have to accept my word on this as I learned about "Natural Born Citizens" from my grade school teachers.......in the late forties.....early fifties.
Now....you're certainly welcome to call me a liar if you believe it would help your position.....and make you feel better....and look smarter.
It doesn’t matter where your husband was born. The deciding factor is whether your husband (and you) were US citizens at the time of your son’s birth.
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.