Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]
birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

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.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016gopprimary; arizona; awjeez; birtherbs; california; canada; carlcameron; congress; cowabunga; cruz2016; debatingbirthers; fff; foxisnotcredible; japan; mccain; mexico; naturalborncitizen; newmexico; obama; teaparty; tedcruz; tedcruziseligible; texas; thisspaceforrent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: GraceG
...we should call them the pejorative “Birthers” for a change!!!

Technically, Birtherism started with the Dems. It was Hillary's camp that started it.

201 posted on 03/09/2013 9:39:57 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


202 posted on 03/09/2013 9:40:10 AM PST by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: mylife

We lost the election because we nominated a liberal.


203 posted on 03/09/2013 9:40:27 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
is also a stupid blunder by people trying to sound intelligent.

Another stupid blunder by CodeToad trying to sound intelligent.

204 posted on 03/09/2013 9:40:39 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zuse

At this point even an anchor baby could become president.

Correction!!!!!

At this point even an anchor baby could become A DEMOCRAT president.


205 posted on 03/09/2013 9:40:51 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

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”..


206 posted on 03/09/2013 9:41:30 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

“He isn’t 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.


207 posted on 03/09/2013 9:42:35 AM PST by Lou Budvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: mylife
One thing is certain, Cruz and his parents held allegiance to America.

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.

208 posted on 03/09/2013 9:42:45 AM PST by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

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!!!!


209 posted on 03/09/2013 9:42:52 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350
Being born in country to citizen parants also means that no other country has any legal right to you or to your loyalty.

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!!!

210 posted on 03/09/2013 9:43:35 AM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

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.


211 posted on 03/09/2013 9:44:39 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Sen. Cruz told Sean Hannity on Wednesday that he believed he was eligible to be President.

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.

212 posted on 03/09/2013 9:45:18 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

Let them choke on it!


213 posted on 03/09/2013 9:45:20 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Ax
That's incorrect. U.S. military installations abroad are not considered U.S. soil for the purposes of citizenship. The following text is from the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual.

7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES”

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.”

Additionally, 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.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

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.


214 posted on 03/09/2013 9:45:33 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
The voters and their electors decide who is and who is not eligible.

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.

215 posted on 03/09/2013 9:45:36 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

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.


216 posted on 03/09/2013 9:45:49 AM PST by B Knotts (Just another Tenther)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You realize that was written before the US even exisited and has no bearing or authority in US law.


217 posted on 03/09/2013 9:45:52 AM PST by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; Road Glide
If our side is as willing to toss out the requirements of the Constitution, just so that our guy (who isn’t any more “qualified” than their guy was) can get in because we like him — what does that do for our argument as desiring to “protect the Constitution”?

THANK YOU!... and well said!


Well, it would be if it weren't for the fact that Road Glide is taking the Fox mischaracterization for granted, assuming Barry and Bob's situations to be parallel, and is unaware that the citizenship status of someone born abroad to American citizens isn't discussed at all in the 14th Amendment. The author of the Minor v Happersett decision, referring specifically to the 14th Amendment, said that, though it was still undecided whether a child born on American soil to non-citizen parents was a natural born citizen, it was indisputable that a child born on American soil to citizen parents was a natural born citizen.
"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


It doesn't follow that the uncertainty attached to the status of a child born on American soil to non-citizen parents means that a child born abroad to American parents is not a natural born citizen. In fact, there was legislation very early on that declared them to be so.
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

218 posted on 03/09/2013 9:45:56 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: mylife

See my post @ 214.


219 posted on 03/09/2013 9:46:42 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

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.


220 posted on 03/09/2013 9:47:15 AM PST by Varsity Flight (Extortion-Care is the Government Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
Sorry Longbow, you’re mistaken.

If he runs I'd bet, if they take the case at all, the courts (ultimately the Supreme Court if necessary) will rule Cruz eligible.

221 posted on 03/09/2013 9:47:35 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
there won't be any serious legal obstacles that Cruz will have to overcome to get on the ballot.

The old fake but accurate ploy, works every time. If we become them, then why have an election at all?

222 posted on 03/09/2013 9:47:35 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mylife
There really is a grandfather clause in Section 1, Article 2:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

I seem to recall that John Tyler was the first President who wasn't grandfathered in, but I may be wrong. It's been a couple decades since my Constitutional Studies classes in college.

Cheers!
223 posted on 03/09/2013 9:48:14 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

bfl


224 posted on 03/09/2013 9:48:17 AM PST by TEXOKIE (We must surrender only to our Holy God and never to the evil that has befallen us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CanuckYank

See my post at 189. U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. consulates are not considered U.S. soil for the purposes of citizenship at birth.


225 posted on 03/09/2013 9:49:12 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

“...wow, so if I am on vacation while pregnant, say I am in the Bahamas chilling on the beach, and my baby comes early, my baby is not a citizen? Just want to clarify....”

Yes. your baby is a U.S. citizen. Eligibility requirements for POTUS (pre-odongo) would probably not be met.
This has been a known issue for a very long time. I was born in 1950 on the US/Canadian border. The only hospital was on the Canadian side. Both my parents were U.S. citizens. Because of this very issue, they elected to birth at home on the American side so as to FOREVER avoid this issue. Not that I ever wanted to run, or ever wanted the job, of POTUS, I would at least be eligible and be able to avoid just this kind of stuff. Clear as mud, I know.


226 posted on 03/09/2013 9:49:17 AM PST by lgjhn23 (It's easy to be liberal when you're dumber than a box of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Let them choke on it!

Let them??? Let Them???

NO NO NO

MAKE THEM CHOKE ON IT!!!!


227 posted on 03/09/2013 9:50:53 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Cruz was born an American citizen by virtue of his mother's U.S. citizenship. He didn't have to naturalize. If he wants to run for President, the Senate will extend to him the same courtesy they did McCain and pass a resolution declaring him eligible. Birthers might stomp their feet and file a bunch of lawsuits that go nowhere but there won't be any serious legal obstacles that Cruz will have to overcome to get on the ballot.

This is exactly how it will play out. If Cruz wishes to run, he won't have any problems.

228 posted on 03/09/2013 9:50:57 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
What Cruz should do is challenge Obama’s eligibility.

Senator Cruz is going to do no such thing. Nothing would torpedo his career faster than throwing his lot in with a bunch of nutjob conspiracy mongers.

229 posted on 03/09/2013 9:51:54 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
It is not part of the US Constitution.

ORLY? Check out Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 'Law of Nations'

The full title of Vattel's work was the The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, and it was what the Founders used to WRITE the Constituion.

Not only in an UNoffical capacity-

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the college of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript Idee sur le gouvernment et la royauté, is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.
Benjamin Franklin To Charles-Guillaume-Frédéric Dumas, Philadelphia December 9, 1775.

but also in an OFFICAL capacity as well-

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America / Monday / March 10, 1794 / Volume 2 / page 44
Ordered, That the Secretary purchase Blackstone's Commentaries, and Vattel's Law of Nature and Nations, for the use of the Senate.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=002/llsj002.db&recNum=42&itemLink=D?hlaw:13:./temp/~ammem_LF5V::%230020043&linkText=1

-----

Even after Ratification, legal scholars continued to state the importance of Vattel's work within the mechanics of Constituional Law.

It will he remembered, that the object of the several states in the adoption of that instrument, was not the establishment of a general consolidated government, which should swallow up the state sovereignties, and annihilate their several jurisdictions, and powers, as states; but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects; viz. their intercourse and concerns with foreign nations; and with each other, as separate and independent states; and, as members of the same confederacy: leaving the administration of their internal, and domestic concerns, to the absolute and uncontrolable jurisdiction of the states, respectively; except in one or two particular instances, specified, and enumerated in the constitution. And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations; for Vattel informs us, "that several sovereign, and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without each in particular ceasing to be a perfect state.
Of the Unwritten, or Common Law of England; And Its Introduction into, and Authority Within the United American States
George Tucker

-----

Just because we have been told all our lives by our government educators that the federal government is the sole arbitrator of what the Constitution MEANS doesn't make it true.

230 posted on 03/09/2013 9:53:24 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Why Target Cruz? Cruz has been a breath of fresh air.

Maybe because as Patriots we feel the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually mean something.

Feel free to garner a movement to amend the Constitution declaring that we are all Citizens of the World, as Obama claimed to be on his European pre-election tour.

Kumbaya everyone.

231 posted on 03/09/2013 9:53:48 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Durus

We nominated no one, and Romney is far from liberal.

I backed Rick Perry, but many here told me he was an insider charlatan and then others told me he was a dufus no count.

Truth is, he has done a pretty decent job of keeping the peace and prosperity.

I almost voted for Kinky Friedman in one election cycle because Rick was getting a little to big for his britches.
I figured, Kinky would make Willie Nelson his energy Czar. the two would sit around the Govs mansion wearing cowboy hats. playin guitars and smoking doobies and no harmful legislation would be passed LOL.

While I like serious effective politicians I would rather most of them fade into the grey and just get out of the peoples bussiness


232 posted on 03/09/2013 9:54:27 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

“...I would continue to push Cruz. Let’s see how the Democrats react....”
I wholly agree. It will bring out the worst hypocrisy you’ll ever see. They pushed that used sack of Kenyan goat crap onto America without vetting him, or they kept it well-hidden. His father was a British subject!...unless it was Marshall. Who knows what he really is. The communists really have no voice when it comes to Cruz.


233 posted on 03/09/2013 9:54:56 AM PST by lgjhn23 (It's easy to be liberal when you're dumber than a box of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

“Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality ‘governed’ his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too.”

It was the Obama campaign that claimed in twisted legal language that THE CHILDREN of BHO Sr. were “governed by” the BNA of 1948...and concluded that Barry was a UK subject at birth. But how reliable is the Obot legal team????

If you actually read the BNA of 1948 you discover that only the LEGAL children are UK subjects at birth, NOT illegitimate children of bigamous marriages.

Contemporaneous legal documents in the INS FOIA file reveal a strong suspicion by the INS, the U of HI, and Harvard that BHO Sr. had a wife back in Kenya. A letter in the Tom Mboya archive from BHO Sr. to Mboya asks Mboya to look after HIS WIFE in Nairobi circa 1964. UK Kenya Colony law has statutes against bigamy and against mixing tribal, Christian and Muslim marriages. BHO Sr. was Muslim in name only, was educated in a Christian-only school and did NOT have a Muslim marriage to Kezia and gave his first son by Kezia a Christian name (son only later coverted to being Muslim) and a daughter of the marriage to Kezia was not raised Muslim. In 1964, hard-drinking Marxist non-Muslim BHO Sr. returned to Kenya after independence and married an American white Jewish woman.

Therefore, if any US court ever ruled that Barry’s UK father prevented him from being NBC at birth, Barry could just point to the fact that for single mothers, nationality follows the mother, not the father both at the time of the founding and going forward. So there would be no dual citizenship and on foreign clam on loyalty, the primary NBC concern of the founders, if Barry’s mom was legally single at birth.

Joe Arpaio is an experienced federal and state LEO who claims he has proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Barry’s HI LFBC is a forgery. If true, there is no proof that Barry was born on US soil, although there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in the INS FOIA files that SADO is his mom and that BHO Sr. was fingered by U of HI as the dad and considered to be the dad by the INS.


234 posted on 03/09/2013 9:54:57 AM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowboy Bob

And if Obama somehow got away with having 11 wives or marrying his daughter, that means we throw all law, morality and history out the window?


235 posted on 03/09/2013 9:55:58 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
GraceG wrote:

"Canada is sort of America-Lite..."

The comedienne Kathleen Madigan had a great bit about Canada:

"Canada is like America's attic. You hardly ever go up there, but when you do, you look around and say: 'Wow, there's some cool s**t up here!'"

236 posted on 03/09/2013 9:56:32 AM PST by Magnatron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: mylife

No, we.did not. That is a ridiculous statement.


237 posted on 03/09/2013 9:56:57 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Do you Honestly believe that if you are a good citizen of the USA and your child is born overseas, and embraces and loves you and the USA, your child should be denied your beliefs and legacy?

Is that in the constitution?


238 posted on 03/09/2013 9:57:16 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Correct, but that citizenship is obtained by statute rather than under the 14th Amendment. See my post @214 for the details of the following statement: According to the State Dept., statutory citizenship at birth may not be equivalent to natural-born citizenship obtained under the U.S. Constitution on U.S. soil. Statutory citizens at birth may not be eligible for the presidency. The courts have never ruled on it.


239 posted on 03/09/2013 9:58:09 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
If Cruz wishes to run, he won't have any problems.

No problems, except for getting vote from people who don't see him as being eligible or want anything to do with his politics.

I love the guy and think he's getting off to a tremendous start in the Senate!

But running him for POTUS will be divisive for the party that runs him, since those who like him but like the Constitution more won't vote for him and the other half of the country never would vote for him any way.

That sort of divide and conquer works against you if you want to win the WH.

240 posted on 03/09/2013 9:58:31 AM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: mylife
If Obama was legal then Cruz is legal.

They break the law, then so should we, once we take over we can start obeying the Constitution right?

When has that ever happened? Power seized by a government is rarely if ever voluntarily relinquished.

241 posted on 03/09/2013 9:58:54 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

No two anything can give birth. An individual female being in the mammalian category gives birth.


242 posted on 03/09/2013 9:59:24 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mylife
A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF...

One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is before November 14, 1986 but after October 10, 1952 and...

The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.

US Citizenship And Immigration Services

Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?

243 posted on 03/09/2013 10:00:10 AM PST by South40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

It is the truth.

4 million single issue Repubs did not vote.

Good job /s

Where are we now? I will tell you where we are now.
We are doing a preemptive strike on one of our brightest rising stars.

And here I am pinching my nose and wondering why.


244 posted on 03/09/2013 10:00:24 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
You were close. Martin Van Buren, the 8th President, was the first President born a US citizen at birth:

From Wiki: Martin Van Buren (Dutch: Maarten van Buren pronunciation (help·info) ; December 5, 1782 – July 24, 1862) was the eighth President of the United States (1837–1841). Before his presidency, he was the eighth Vice President (1833–1837) and the tenth Secretary of State (1829-1831), both under Andrew Jackson. Van Buren was a key organizer of the Democratic Party, a dominant figure in the Second Party System, and the first president not of British or Irish descent—his family was Dutch. He was the first president to have been born a United States citizen,[2] his predecessors having been born British subjects before the American Revolution.[3] He is the only president not to have spoken English as his first language, having grown up speaking Dutch,[4] and the first president from New York.

I was born in America to an American father and an Italian mother. My mother naturalized when she was 50 years old, and I was 13.

I have never considered myself eligible to be President.

I can be a Senator, like Cruz, or a Congressman, but not President.

I don't have a problem with that.

245 posted on 03/09/2013 10:01:01 AM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
"A candidate's qualification to be president is a question to be decided by the people and not by a handful of judges."

I have been here a long time and that is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read. This is a Republic and it is governed by laws, not mob rule!

246 posted on 03/09/2013 10:01:09 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2; yldstrk
Your baby would be a “born” citizen but not a natural born citizen.

And that interpretation bothers me, because, for example, it also excludes children born to people with a job requiring a temporary position abroad. At the same time we bestow US citizenship on the children of those that sneak into the US while mantaining citizenship elsewhere.

When the Constitution was written people didn't jet off to foreign lands for a vacation or quick visit, the travel was long and arduous. The trip was probably taken because you wanted to immigrate to a new country or had to serve in an official capacity as a representative of the government.

In the case of yldstrk having to give birth while vacationing in the Bahamas we have (I presume) two parents that are US citizens with true faith and allegiance to the same, temporarily out of the country and will return home. It doesn't make sense to me to consider that child ineligible for the Presidency.

247 posted on 03/09/2013 10:02:25 AM PST by ken in texas (I was taught to respect my elders but it keeps getting harder to find any.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

“Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen either due to his parents not being citizens at the time of his birth.”

Rubio is the legal equivalent of an “anchor baby” as is Jindal as was the drone-killed al Awlaki who had exactly the type of dual loyalty at birth that the founders feared.

Yet 99& of the elite legal establishment has decided, and all lower courts have resisted any effort to affirm that anything more than being born on US soil is needed to be NBC POTUS eligible.

I hope that Dems or a GOP primary challenger will challenge Rubio or Cruz’s NBC eligibility and that SCOTUS will finally rule. Better yet, I hope that new evidence of Barry’s likely Kenyan birth comes out. That would prompt a SCOTUS ruling ASAP! I do not presume to know whether SCOTUS would affirm the Minor v. Happersett NBC definition or give Barry a Mulligan based solely on his US citizen mom regardless of where he was born.


248 posted on 03/09/2013 10:02:56 AM PST by Seizethecarp (Defend aircraft from "runway kill zone" mini-drone helicopter swarm attacks: www.runwaykillzone.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Marie
John McCain was born on base. It was declared ‘US soil’, thus he is eligible.

John McCain was not born on base. This has been posted endlessly and yet we have misinformed posters declare this fallacy again and again. To what purpose?

It really comes down to the notion that just because they did it, we should too. When that happens the Oath to defend and Protect the Constitution become meaningless. I for one will not travel that oh so popular road, now that we have our own clean and articulate ineligible Presidential Candidate.

God Bless the Republic.

249 posted on 03/09/2013 10:06:17 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
I don’t see any evidence that would indicate otherwise.

Look harder.

We're not talking about mere citizenship here. This requirement is specified only for the presidency.

250 posted on 03/09/2013 10:07:03 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 1,551-1,578 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson