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.
Technically, Birtherism started with the Dems. It was Hillary's camp that started it.
State Departments Foreign Affairs Manual???? I am really surprised that anybody nowadays would quote anything from the State Department as being “Gospel”. Inasmuch as “Natural Born” is not defined in the Constitution and only has been subject to many interpretations, do you think it was possible back in the late 1700’s that they intended “Natural Born” to mean “Not By Witchcraft”? Put your Cheetos down and go do something productive.
We lost the election because we nominated a liberal.
Another stupid blunder by CodeToad trying to sound intelligent.
At this point even an anchor baby could become president.
At this point even an anchor baby could become A DEMOCRAT president.
BUT Cruz is not black... makes all the difference..
Course Obama is NOT BLACK either.. at least any blacker than he is white..
But then many famous blacks are not any blacker than they are white.. i.e. Alicia Keys.. Rev. Wright, Louie Farrakand.. Niki Menage,,
Could be because they have “A” white, asian or hispanic parent..
but mostly just because they ARE NOT BLACK.. at all..
but mostly “TALK” black as a masked “patois”..
“He isnt a natural born Citizen born to two U.S. citizen parents.”
Please give the pinpoint cite in the US Const, US Code, or the Code of Federal Regulations, that supports that definition. Actually, I’ll save you the time. It isn’t there b/c your definition isn’t the law.
Cruz lived in Canada the first four years of his life. How do you know what allegiance he held at that age? And what makes you so certain that Cruz's parents held allegiance to the USA back then? Perhaps they intended to move to Canada permenantly, but decided to move back here after the fact.
Canada is sort of America-Lite, except for Quebec.
Canadians are Americans.
Depends on how far away from Quebec one is.....
My former boss was from the Canadian mid west, He served in Vietnam VOLUNTARILY!!! And he was a very big fan of John Wayne and was a Republican!!!!
He was from Saskatchewan!!!!
Being born elsewhere removes that exclusivity.
We don't honor that now, since foreigners can be born here and we claim them as our own and give them full rights.
But you're saying it doesn't work both ways? Why? What if the other country disagrees.
So, you're born in America, you are an American. If you're born in England, you're an American. But if an English citizen couple gives birth here that child isn't English, but American? Or is that only true for illegal aliens?
Stupid old white FFs. Everybody is a natural born citizen of America, now, no matter where they are born!!!
I am getting a little weary of the point of law as defined by the old boys club.
I thought the constitution and bill of rights were based on positive, rather than negative rights.
The Constitution and bill of rights were not intended to stifle the human spirit.
Sometimes these entrenched keepers of the fire forget that.
When we have let the Constitution be ignored and then say it is OK to ignore it because now our guy is able to use the same tact, what have we become?
Despicably wicked comes to mind.
Let them choke on it!
7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF IN THE UNITED STATESAdditionally, acquiring one's citizenship at birth by statute may not be equal to natural-born citizenship under the Constitution. The following text is from the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual.
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
d. (snip) In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
If Cruz is elected by the voters and their electors, he is qualified. Period.
A candidate's qualification to be president is a question to be decided by the people and not by a handful of judges.
If Cruz wants to run, he should run and argue his case to the people. And, judges should each get one vote like everyone else.
You and I can certainly give our opinions as to what it means, or ought to mean, but they’re not worth a whole lot.
You might not like that, but it’s the truth.
I think the idea that it requires being born on U.S. soil makes some sense, but I don’t know if I buy the idea that parents must *both* be citizens. I think that being born on U.S. soil, legally, is enough. I don’t see any evidence that would indicate otherwise.
As for Ted Cruz, no, he would not qualify under that scenario. But, like I said, until the courts rule, we really don’t know what the actual interpretation will be.
You realize that was written before the US even exisited and has no bearing or authority in US law.
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
--Page 88 U. S. 168
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [Footnote 8] These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also. [Footnote 9]
--Page 88 U. S. 168
See my post @ 214.
Vladmir Putin, Mao, and everyone else are now eligible, as long as all paychecks first go to the Federal government through Extortion-Care, and “bank” stress tests consist of how fast they have free and immediate access to taxpayer money.
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.