Posted on 03/07/2016 6:15:57 PM PST by Citizen Zed
Edited on 03/07/2016 7:14:25 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A New York judge has dismissed a petition that claimed Ted Cruz was not eligible to run for President of the United States because he is not a "natural born citizen."
Judge David A. Weinstein's ruling was procedural, stating that the petitioners, Barry Korman and William Gallo, failed to submit timely objections, which stripped the court of jurisdiction over the petition. His ruling did not consider the actual merits of whether Cruz, who was born in Canada, qualified as a natural-born citizen in this year's presidential election.
Would Cruz be eligible if he were born in 1789 when the Constitution was created?
Then he is not a natural born citizen as originally intended.
Nobody cares anymore.
So Article II of the constitution does not mean anything? Whenever, I read these convoluted arguments about how first Obama, and now Cruz, are natural born, the constitution itself is always conveniently ignored. Isn’t the reason for supporting Cruz supposed to because he is such a great defender of the constitution? It seems to me, he and you are just selective defenders of the constitution!
Neither the recent Canadian or the anchor baby are eligible.
Ref:”Would Cruz be eligible if he were born in 1789 when the Constitution was created?... Then he is not a natural born citizen as originally intended.”
Apparently you did not read the sections from the Naturalization act of 1790 which were included by Yosemitest in the post. The act was supported and signed by many members of the Constitutional Convention. Cruz falls squarely into their definition of Natural Born Citizens.
Ref:”So Article II of the constitution does not mean anything? Whenever, I read these convoluted arguments about how first Obama, and now Cruz, are natural born, the constitution itself is always conveniently ignored. ...”
The arguments provided by Yosemitest are not convoluted, they are Constitutionally rock solid. It addresses the Constitutional and legal definitions and the intent of many of the writers of the Constitution. — (Which is why I keep reposting it on all of these threads.) — Article II only requires that the President be a Natural Born Citizen, which Cruz clearly is by all Constitutional and legal definitions.
The United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by omitting the term “natural born.” The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].” It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”
he won’t take NY NY was the state hwo elected hillary as their senator after all, and they keep electing cuomo and bloomberg and whats-his-face deblasio- NY is a hopeless state-
Then he is not a natural born citizen as originally intended.
You really want to go back to the 1789 Constitution? Fine, turn in your firearms. The Second Ammendment was not there yet. Neither was the Fourth, so you have no due process. Turn them in NOW.
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm
Interviewer: Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?
Cruz: Sure, go ahead.
Interviewer: What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?
Cruz: Two citizen parents and born on the soil.
Interviewer: Not exactly, but as I don't have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?
Cruz: I would agree.
Interviewer: So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?
Cruz: No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.
Interviewer: But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!
Interviewer: At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.
“The courts will take a technical or procedural approach whenever the opportunity presents. But, in the end, they will never support the birther argument. They dont want to get involved with this argument.”
When the judges play games with the technicalities to avoid acknowledgement of the ineligibility, they violate the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, for which they deserve to be impeached for not complying with their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
These suits are a waste of time. The don’t challenge the relevant law because they either don’t know the law or they can’t find any argument to use in their challenge. These things are a joke and the courts don’t want to waste their time.
Nor would Obama and a significant number of his supporters been able to vote. (Free, white, 21, male, and a property owner).
To answer the question of whether Cruz meets the definition of a natural born citizen as originally intended...yes I do.
Selective I see. Cherry picking the law.
Only if Congress passes an amendment to the Constitution declaring Ted Czus eligible to serve as president and that amendment is radified by 3/4s of the states. Otherwise congress has no say in the matter. It is entirely up to the courts and the courts are very reluctant to "take the case".
Ted Cruz will not win NY. He will be lucky to hang on to Texas.
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.