Skip to comments.Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
When you label conservatives who debunk your ridiculous theories are traitors, you’ve officially gone off the deep end. You are fighting an imaginary war against conservatives, just because they refuse to believe your nonsense. Newsflash, you are in the fringe. You are not standing up for the Constitution. You are our own worst enemy. You push the birther agenda, instead of focusing on the awful legislation and regulations pushed by Obama. If you put as much fervor into defunding Obamacare, as you do about birtherism, maybe more senators beside Ted Cruz would be pushing for such an initiative.
Keep on living on the fringe.
And what is ‘the agenda’ I have posted which has so enlightened you? And it might be instructional if you post my ‘definition’ of NBC, so we can get a handle on this brilliance you seem to possess. ... Axelgreasy is hiring poorer and poorer workers as Brennan becomes little barry bastard boy’s favorite now.
The birther agenda. You believe that the only way to stop Barack Obama’s awful presidency is to push this birther nonsense. In doing so, you are now attacking strong conservatives such as Ted Cruz, and lesser conservatives like Marco Rubio.
Is Mark Levin a traitor?
Fifth grade we had a troika of beauties for teachers. A blonde Barby doll and two brunettes. It was common knowledge in the school that one of them was pictured in the Playboy magazine in her younger days. She was our art teacher. An unforgettable year.
None the less, your insults are SOP for your team and I'm used to it. Same old, same old. I forgive you your trespasses against me.
Your team has won, so lighten up and be happy, Francis.
You'll have your progressive utopia with your progressive leader and his citizenship of the world status, so enjoy the ride...until the money runs out.
We're all agreeable until then.
Well let’s see. I’m ardently pro life, pro traditional marriage, and pro free market. I believe that the FDR was public enemy number to the Constitution, especially when he attempted to stack the court to push his New Deal legislation. On top of it, I believe Owen Roberts was a turncoat, who changed his votes to allow FDR to push threw the New Deal abominations.
I can’t stand Barack Obama, and constantly compare him unfavorably to Obama. I also find it interested that another Justice Roberts has switched his vote to push through another abomination, Obamacare.
Stop questioning others conservative values because they refuse to believe your birther nonsense. Get over it. You are on the fringe.
Hey fool n00b, you keep writing ‘you believe’. Well genius, quote me. You’re a joke, an amateur at FR. I have no further need to play with your weakness. Have nice day
When the money runs out, that’s where the “well as armed militia” comes in handy.
Well, Jeff and Mr. Rogers have been here much longer than me, and they find you birthers to be just as nonsensical.
Quick, what hospital has taken claim to Obamas birth?
Sadly, none :(
They must be racist.
Clearly! Man, life wasn't fair. I had nothing like that.
It was screwed up in a lot of ways. We got crappy performing cars and high gas prices just when I got my license. The 60s got some of the best music and we got disco?!? It got better, but damn, that's just not cool.
Our hair and clothes were messed up...remember those men's basket ball shorts or leisure suits? Yikes, what were we thinking?
On the other hand, we had short shorts, tank and tube tops, nair commercials, etc. and all pre-AIDs before sex was deadly again...ok, maybe it wasn't all bad...and disco did die and the music got much better...and we were the ones who first got to beta test the computer and video game revolution...
Maybe it wasn't so bad...I'm still jealous of your art teacher, though...
The argument is over the definition of “natural born citizen.”
As a result of my refusal to accept the birther definition of “natural born citizen” I’ve been called a traitor.
I can’t stand Obama. I believe his policies are destroying the nation. I find it despicable that the media completely disregarded his connection to Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Marxism. However, I refuse to acknowledge that definition of NBC.
If I have misjudged you, then please forgive me my trespasses against you.
I guess we just disagree about who is a citizen and why. You like a much more liberal wide open definition and status where anything goes.
I take a much more conservative approach, choosing the most stringent, highest best standard for citizenship and believe that highest standard is also what the FFs chose.
If that is the basis of our disagreement and what has banished me to your fringe, then that's the way it is.
We have arrived at where we started. I know your arguments, but you cannot cite mine as I stated them nor why.
Not much left to say...
Well, I just see no purpose for this conservative in fighting. I have no problem with taking a stringent standard for citizenship. I’m a Constitutional conservative. Most liberals want to pervert the Constitution or just disregard completely.
I just see no one the Court would ever take that definition of NBC, even if it what the Framers intended. We’ve already had two Presidents that did not meet that requirement.
The argument is most likely moot anyway? Do we really expect someone as conservative as Cruz would get the Republican nomination?
I’m fully expecting Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, and staying at home in November 2016.
*I just see no way the Court would ever enforce that definition of NBC. Sorry for the typo. It’s getting late and I’m off to bed.
Like I said though, we shouldn’t be going attacking each other when we have to fight against the media, the entertainment industry, professors, public schools, etc on q daily basis.
As conservatives, pop culture is waging war on us. We should be united, not divided. If you don’t believe me just check out the latest Kindle commercial, where the guy refers to “his husband” at the bar.
I certainly don’t want my kids growing up in a world where black is white, and right is wrong.
That’s why I think we need to focus on the easy criticisms of Obama. Obamacare being the focal point.
To those who feel as I do and believe the Constitution demands that highest standard for the POTUS and anything less is UN-Constitutional, then you understand the purpose well enough.
If you do, then you know that to me and others with this understanding, it is a Constitutional fight mandated by the oaths I've sworn. Just the way it is.
Just the way we were raised and taught back "in my day".
Assuming that you and the others who argue your point of view are Americans, it is the internet after all and you never know for sure, then y'all have been robbed of a good education, but you just don't know it.
I'll give you this. You didn't call me a racist like your side used to do on these citizenship threads. That's a step in the right direction.
“Naturalized individuals have never been eligible.”
Consider this hypothetical:
In 1784, a 35 year old London-born man moves from England to Massachusetts and in 1787 he is naturalized by an act of the state legislature to be a citizen of Massachusetts.
Would he fall under the grandfather clause?
Under English law at the time, he would still be a British subject.
Under the Constitution would this disqualify him?
No Retired Army Guy, McCain was ineligible and so is Cruz. McCain was born on unincorporated territory, a Congressional oversight. The Canal Zone was incorporated as sovereign territory in 1937, a year after McCain was born. It seems unfair, but what a mess we would have if "fairness" trumped laws. The most recent evidence that players in Congress understood this is S 2678, sponsored by Obama and his campaign chair, Clare McCaskill, and co-sponsored by Hillary, Leahy, Webb, and later, Menendez, in Feb 2008, the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill failed to pass.
It's objective was to make McCain appear to be eligible. It could not have had effect because only the Supreme Court may interpret provisions of the Constitution. It didn't pass so questions of constitutionality could not be asked. I agree that Article II Section 1 should be amended to cover children of military citizens, but carefully, since the concerns held by our framers hold today. Being President is not a right. The objective of the Constitution is to compile the natural law that applied to protecting our individual sovereignty from enemies foreign and domestic. The threat from foreigners was particularly important to our framers, and their prescience is remarkably valid today.
There has never been doubt about the citizenship of a child born on our soil of citizen parents. He/she is a natural born citizen. FR has thousands of citations of the five chief justices and almost thirty supreme court cases, so I won't duplicate them. Today we have immigrants, born to illegal aliens, who are naturalized as "anchor babies" - the mother reaches the US to have her baby in one of our hospitals. The child's allegiances, probably like Obama's, could be, like many Hispanics who won't salute our flag, strongest to the country of origin of his mother or father. That child is a "Native-born citizen of the US", exactly the term used by Obama on his web site to define his birth status. That is a 14th Amendment naturalized citizen. Obama is not eligible to the presidency, but his daughters are, I don't question Rubio's or McCain's or Jindal's or Cruz's allegiance, but our framers decided it was unwise to leave the president's criteria, designed to minimize the chance of a devious enemy of our Constitution, someone whose secret goal it is to replace our form of government, up to political arbitration.
Don't you wonder why our GOP hierarchy are floating naturalized citizen after naturalized citizen as fresh blood for future elections? When citizens learn that they have been deceived about what is clear from dozens of Supreme Court cases, the Republican mainstream will be seen as guilty of enabling Obama's tenure in office, even though he, Obama, always described his class of citizenship as naturalized. He knew he would never be asked. Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, have all shown their unsuitability for office by failing to honestly answer who were natural born citizen.
Indeed, as a US citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, he would have been eligible.
I must cut this off somewhere. This is the last post before my final one for this discussion.
“And wouldn’t you know the English Common Law book which defined “natural born subject” used the Vattel Definition? “
Here is what Chief Justice Cockburn wrote in 1869.
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
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.