Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
LOL!
Once again, it's considered common courtesy not to talk about people behind their back.
As I've said many times, if there's anything in any of my posts you find to be false or in any way a misrepresentation of our history or our law, then please post which particular point you think is false. Please post WHY you think it to be false.
Ah, but we can't do that, can we?
They arrived at the conclusions they wanted. No great feat, that.
From what I know of him, it wouldn't surprise me if it's not a maneuver to turn the tables on the libs. They really, REALLY don't want him in the Oval Office, but if they squawk 'ineligible', they'll be hoisted on their own petard.
A person is "naturalized" according to any requirement congress wants. Congress put in the stipulation that it be "at birth" but they could have stipulated six months after, had they wished. They DID stipulate an AGE requirement for the mother. If the mother is too young, the child doesn't get any citizenship. Does that sound like "natural born" to you?
The point is, you are confusing citizenship by an act of law with being a "natural citizenship", merely because it happens at birth.
However, like many when first reading the Constitution I was impressed with how well it was written and how easy it was to understand most of it. I also was impressed with its economy of prose. Those economical Framers went out of their way to add the NBC clause. My faith in the Framers says they meant something by it. Just what they meant has long been a subject of personal curiosity.
Philosophically I favor an originalist strategy for interpreting the law. Prior to Obama arising on the scene I'd read claims that Wong Kim Ark didn't mesh with the interpretation given by the 14th's writers, who allegedly meant something different than that with their "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. I understand Wong Kim Ark is binding law on "citizenship." I also understand the result is different than citizenship law in most other countries and is at least partially to blame for US immigration controversies. And, living in the community to which Dred Scott's arrival should legally have resulted in his freedom I've long been aware that the Supreme Court sometimes rules wrongly and needs to be corrected. Obamacare is a professionally painful reminder of that sad fact.
I'm willing to consider the possibility that Wong Kim Ark needs revision, but also recognize I don't understand the law enough to argue the details. I have downloaded the full decision for future reading. Hopefully I'll learn something from it. 'Birther' sources have claimed Won Kim Ark only dealt with citizenship, not with 'NBC.' My browser's search only found one instance of "natural born" and none of "natural born citizen" in the decision yet you report an "excruciatingly detailed 30 or 40 page discussion of the entire legal history of NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP" is there. I look forward to reading it as the former doesn't rule out the latter.
One of the frustrations of 'birthers,' and also of those undecided as to whether they should be birthers, is the refusal of courts to rule on the alleged issue of what is NBC. Over my life courts have ruled on all kinds of cases I'd have never thought belonged in a court of law, yet it seems no one has the standing to bring this case. If there were a political conspiracy to award Miley Cyrus the White House in 2016 I'd like to think there'd be some venue in which I could point out she would be only 24, not the constitutional age of 35 at her inauguration. The rule of law should provide the same venue(s) for the office's other requirements. Although it can be frustrating I understand why judges prefer to make minimalist rulings. To do otherwise would be judicial activism with all its problems. But in this case I wish some case would achieve standing and some judge would produce a brilliantly written analysis of the NBC clause to which only obviously politically blinded types could disagree. Maybe I'll find that analysis in Wong Kim Ark as you suggest. If not, my reverence for the foresight of the Framers will remain enhanced by Obama's case.
Okay.
I've posted plenty of historical and legal evidence and discussion in this thread.
Identify one thing I've said that is either false, or a clear misrepresentation of the truth, and give documentation that that's the case.
Otherwise, all you're really saying is that you don't have a case for any of your claims, and hate and are prepared to bad-mouth anyone who points that out.
Why would you quote statute law regarding a constitutional requirement? Can you just redefine the meaning of a constitutional term by changing statute law?
If so, we can simply write a law that defines "arms" as "Slingshots" and we have created defacto gun control.
Statute law CANNOT change the meaning of words written in the Governing document. To allow such a thing would be a very grave threat to our freedom.
And of course the $%^&%# Idiot shows up to sow confusion into the topic.
Not going to jump into this argument, but sure would like to see him Chief Justice of the SCOTUS for about 40 years.
I personally think Jeff Works for some sort of RNC outfit or elected rep, and it is the official Party policy to contest eligibility issues.
As has been noted earlier, there are too many prominent Republicans with serious eligibility issues if the strict standard is applied.
People such as Jeff merely put Party politics before the truth or the best long term interests of the Nation.
I’m sorry you find following the Constitution strident.
Too bad Cruz couldn’t have stated the fact the he is INELIGIBLE. Instead, he wants to ignore the USURPER in the White House and lend him legitimacy.
He’s a politician looking out for himself not the Constitution. You know, the job’s he’s paid to do.
Cruz is an enabler of THE ONE.
That one is a large blue sh!tfly buzzing around FR with 180 degree twists aimed at deception, nothing more. It is a professional liar int he mode of Alinsky types. I have zero respect for such vermin regardless of which party, the democrips or the republicants, it works for.
Obams meets two of three, Cruz one of three.
We do not know to any degree of certainty that Obama meets two of the three. We take it for granted that Hawaii really is his place of birth.
As you are no doubt aware, Hawaii will issue a birth certificate to the child of a Hawaiian resident, regardless of where born. (weird law.)
But yeah, Ted Cruz has less of a basis than does Obama, *IF* Obama's claims are accepted as true.
BTW, the poster using the name Jeff Winston is no fool. His lies are very calculated and his deceptions fashioned in pure alinskyesque upside down assertion. He does however work for the father of lies a murderer from the start, as do all calculating liars.
In both Jay's Letter to Washington, and in the Federalist Papers, the intent is plainly stated to guard against Foreign influence in the executive branch of government.
Any definition which does not accomplish this purpose is defacto WRONG.
Obama is the evidence of this made manifest.
If being an American citizen was enough then why did congress have to pass a LEGALLY INVALID bill for John McCain back in 2008 to try and make him eligible?
Why? He's an American citizen. Nobody disputes that. Why did they have to go out of their way to try and give him a something he already "presumably" has? (We know why they ignored Obama). But why McCain? Why? Because they were trying to give him and THEMSELVES a legal fig leaf.
Why is there only ONE position in the entire Constitution the REQUIRES the occupant to be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN if American citizenship is enough?
Why? Why did the framers single the presidency out for such a rigorous standard?
Why have there been numerous (at least 4 maybe more - my recollection) FAILED attempts from congress to ERRONEOUSLY define NBC? Why have all attempts failed? Because THE PEOPLE didn't want them and they are Constitutionally invalid not only as a process but in definition.
The most recent failed attempt:
Sen.Don Nickles attempted in 2004 to alter the term NBC and it failed. See #1 and #2 below. It failed because the people don't want it. They understand what the Founding Fathers intended.
“They ought to have the same rights,” said Don Nickles, a former Republican senator from Oklahoma who in 2004 introduced legislation that would have established that children born abroad to American citizens could harbor presidential ambitions without a legal cloud over their hopes. “There is some ambiguity because there has never been a court case on what ‘natural-born citizen’ means.”
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128
S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act
108th Congress, 2003–2004
A bill to define the term "natural born Citizen" as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
Introduced:
Feb 25, 2004
Sponsor:
Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]
Status:
Died (Introduced)
2/25/2004--Introduced.
Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President, as:
(1) any person born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States; and
(2) any person born outside the United States who derives citizenship at birth from U.S. citizen parents, or who is adopted by the age of 18 by U.S. citizen parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship.
Yes, because we all know the meaning of "natural citizen" changes every time they pass a new law.
Idiot.
Another idiot post by the community idiot.
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.