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]
People that demand their Constitutional right to bear arms are derided by some as “gun nuts”.
People that demand their Constitutional right to a natural born President are derided by some as “birthers”.
Anyone that derides someone for claiming their God given Constitutional rights is a disgusting, Constitution hating, liberal.
The topic being discussed is Presidential eligibility and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, not the right to keep and bear arms.
Try to stay focused....
Ref: “Below you can find Ted Cruz’s own words about what constitutes a ‘natural born’ US citizen. Cruz knows he is not eligible under original intent of the Constitution... and so does Hillry!!!”
Sorry, but I have to question the authenticity of the “redacted” source for this interview claiming to use Ted Cruz’s words. But even if Ted Cruz actually gave such an opinion, it would not change the Constitutional and legal standards which make him a Natural Born Citizen.
It would be a political gaffe, but not a deadly one.
closed. Very. Only allowed to vote in the party you are registered in. And you have to make any changes to party MONTHS ahead.
If you are a registered conservative, you can’t vote. Only Republican or Dem in Presidential primaries - and basically all local races for that matter.
I am staying focused.
Personal slights aside, the Constituion of 1789 did not define NBC. So based on that fact alone, the Constitution does not provide the answer. We must look to other law for the clarification. So the claim that it does is inaccurate.
I continue to discuss the topic and do not take personal shots. I find it curious Trump supporters seem to be unable to do the same.
I never said it did...you've moved from red herrings to men of straw.
However if Cruz were born in 1789 he would not be eligible for President and therefore is not eligible today, if held to the original intent of the Constitution's framers.
If they didn’t define NBC, how do you conclusively declare “intent”? You claimed the 1789 version demonstrated clear intent. It does not.
“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.”
The precedent case of State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie in North Dakota demonstrates that remark is just another example of perpetuating a lie to wrongfully trivialize and dismiss an actual wrong being committed against all Citizens of the United States. Ted Cruz was born abroad as a citizen of Canada, which makes it impossible for him to be a natural born citizen of the United States as remarked by the U.S. Supreme Court when it said: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“failed to submit timely objections”
Well that clarifies nothing.
My impression is that the upstate Republican New Yorkers are on the conservative side, but the NY metropolitan area, not so much. Do you think Donald wins based on the home field advantage, if its otherwise anywhere near a close call?
PS. Where are my manners? Thank you for that informative answer.
I’m much more concerned about the disregard of the 10th Amendment, and of our current President to faithfully execute the laws of the United States and to support the Constitution. That is something worth worrying about.
All of this is silly. I am quite confident that both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio are qualified to be President, and will be certified by all the states if nominated. The question will be moot, In all likelihood, Trump will be nominated.
You are welcome. Yes, upstate leans very to moderate conservative. NYC is dem, and so based on numbers, controls the entire state.
Trump will easily win the primary here. As to the general - will Trump get NY? Tough to say. NYers have a habit of not turning out for the primaries in the same numbers as the general, because our primary vote usually does not matter in the big picture. That’s why it’s tough to call - because Hillary isn’t well loved, Trump is a native and somewhat popular, and so I see this as which party is more motivated when it’s time to vote in the general. One thing is for certain - we don’t have a “anyone but Trump” mentality in NY.
How many Presidents argue cases in from of SCOTUS? NONE.
Cruz's experience including managing 13 state gov't lawyers in Texas and managing 13 federal gov't lawyers at the FTC and managing his senate staff, might qualify him to be Attorney General, or an advisor to the President on SCOTUS and other court nominations. (Though I think Trump can judge people's character far better than Cruz, Cruz is the better lawyer).
Cruz's experience does NOT qualify him to:
For what it's worth, Rubio's experience is about on the same level as Cruz's. I think he has been a senator longer, but both are lacking any kind of private sector experience, large organization management skills, military or foreign policy experience.
“All of this is silly. I am quite confident that both Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio are qualified to be President, and will be certified by all the states if nominated. The question will be moot, In all likelihood, Trump will be nominated.”
All you are doing is to violate the law, violate the Constitution, and help the Democrats put Hillary Clinton into the White House as POTUS. You just keep on treating the Constitution with contempt for its natural born citizen clause by supporting John McCain, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and other ineligible naturalized U.S. citizen candidates, and then you wonder why you lose the elections to Democrats like Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton, who proceed to appoint illegitimate U.S. Supreme Court Justices that trash the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
“If they didn’t define NBC, how do you conclusively declare “intent”?”
The definition of a Natural Born Citizen is self evident, simple, eternal, and as old as mankind. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
I am actually following the law, USC 8, Section 1401. You don't agree with the law. That's fine, but unless you want to lead an insurrection, you need to challenge the law and either get the courts to agree with you or get the Congress to change it with Presidential consent. I will support the nominee of the Republican Party, I will never vote for a Democrat.
“I am actually following the law, USC 8, Section 1401. You don’t agree with the law. That’s fine, but unless you want to lead an insurrection, you need to challenge the law and either get the courts to agree with you or get the Congress to change it with Presidential consent. I will support the nominee of the Republican Party, I will never vote for a Democrat.”
You are violating the law, and you failed to even cite the correct and applicable law. The law applicable to Ted Cruz and to Marco Rubio when they were born is the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, which preceded the rewritten form now found in USC 8, Section 1401. Furthermore, both of the past and present Public Laws are U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts which can only confer naturalized U.S. citizenship and have no power whatsoever to confer or regulate natural born U.S. citizenship.
66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization. NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . . (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
Any person born abroad without the protection of diplomatic immunity can only acquire U.S. citizenship by naturalization: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
“I will never vote for a Democrat.”
By supporting naturalized citizens unlawfully campaigning for POTUS, you are in effect aiding and abetting illegal acts that are dividing the Republican Party yet again, which in turn helps another Democrat get into the White House with all the consequences that flow from that misconduct.
You are confused. You are cherry picking from the drivel put out by the birthers who find it convenient to dig up these extinguished ashes once again.
You have selected the wrong clause, a common error among those who have not bothered to examine the law. Try this one:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
This is the law that applies to Mr. Cruz, like it or not. This is why the birthers have become a laughing stock.
If you like Mr. Trump, support him, vote for him, dream that he will deliver us from this nightmare, but I don’t believe that will happen. I will certainly support Trump if he is the nominee of the Republican Party, but I think that conservatives can do better.
As for your argument of blatherings, you are on a fool’s errand, just like the populist rapture for Trump. Spend some money and go to a competent Constitutional and immigration lawyer. He will take your money, but he will laugh you out of his office.
> (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
>
> This is the law that applies to Mr. Cruz, like it or not.
You are confused. The law in force at the time of birth controls.
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.