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 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,561-1,579 next last
To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now ya’all know it doesn’t matter where someone is born or who they are born to ... anyone can be President.
301 posted on 03/09/2013 10:37:54 AM PST by zeaal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Seems pretty arbitrary.


302 posted on 03/09/2013 10:38:30 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: mylife

“The Constitution and bill of rights were not intended to stifle the human spirit.”

This sounds like something right out of the ‘rats playbook.

This is why we need “a living Constitution”, right? Right?


303 posted on 03/09/2013 10:38:45 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: GBA

I don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about, and I don’t think you do either.

I made myself clear, you have to go by the laws of the other country to determine citizenship to that country, not the laws of this country.

If the laws of the country make you a citizen simply by being born in that country, then you are born a dual citizen and not NBC.

If the laws of that country don’t make you a citizen simply by being born in the country then you would be a NBC.

If a British couple has a child in this country the child is both an American citizen and a British subject. He would be a US citizen but he wouldn’t be a NBC of the US.


304 posted on 03/09/2013 10:39:08 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
no one knows what the actual meaning of “natural born” is until it is tested in the courts.

B$ we all know exactly what it means, some here are just hoping some nutty court will find under some penumbra that their inane interpretation was really the correct one all along.

Just tear out a few paragraphs of the Constitution, shucks no one believes those old white guys really had a clue about what modern politics, would become.

305 posted on 03/09/2013 10:39:34 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Very useful information in that post. Thanks...


306 posted on 03/09/2013 10:40:01 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

I took an oath to the constitution of this country.
I took that oath in the wider spirit.
I do not see the constitution as a negative rights.

The spirit of the constitution frees people, it does not shackle them.

Your mileage may vary.


307 posted on 03/09/2013 10:42:08 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

I think obama’s elections set a new precedence and we can’t go back. So, Cruz CAN be eligible under the “new” rules set now.

Right? :)


308 posted on 03/09/2013 10:42:10 AM PST by LUV W (All my heroes wear camos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Actually, they’re technically right.

My son was born in Germany, in an American Army hospital to
two American parents, but he is considered a “naturalized”
citizen...and he has dual citizenship, since we had to register
him at the Wurzburg city hall. He can’t be president either...
not that he wants to be. :)


309 posted on 03/09/2013 10:44:59 AM PST by LUV W (All my heroes wear camos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent
McCain was not born on base. The base hospital was still under construction.

He was born in a Panamanian hospital on Panama soil.


Not according to his mother. Besides, the Panama Canal Zone was U.S. territory. Persons born of two U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone were granted statutory U.S. citizenship at birth under the Naturalization Act of 1795. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled that since the Canal Zone was unincorporated territory, those children born there to two U.S. citizens only became U.S. nationals, not citizens, Later, though, in 1937, Congress reversed the Supreme Court's 1905 ruling by passing legislation that granted both statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904 to at least one U.S. citizen parent and did so retroactively to all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone.
310 posted on 03/09/2013 10:45:40 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Do you know if Canada has always done that or is it something fairly recent?

I wasn’t aware of any country other than the US, doing something as stupid as making someone a citizen simply by being born in the country.


311 posted on 03/09/2013 10:45:58 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
If Obama was not held to these standards, why do you and Fox want to crucify Cruz?

If OJ got away with murder, then why can't all of us do the same thing?

Some of us believe the Constitution was aggrieved by the current President, encouraging our side to do the same thing is evil, and unconstitutional.

312 posted on 03/09/2013 10:46:35 AM PST by itsahoot (It is not so much that history repeats, but that human nature does not change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
John Tyler was the first President born after the adoption of the Constitution. Ironically, his father voted against adoption of the Constitution at the Virginia convention which narrowly voted in favor of accepting the Constitution. By the wording of the Constitution, it was not clear if he became President on Harrison's death or merely "Acting President." (That was finally addressed by the 25th amendment in 1967.)

Martin Van Buren was born in 1782, after the Declaration of Independence but before the Constitution was adopted.

313 posted on 03/09/2013 10:47:10 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: All

here is the bottom line people.

Obama weathered this storm and so will Cruz.
What I don’t get is why are the first to run Cruz out of town folks on our side?

Some of you sound like McCain

“you broke protcol!!!”
“assume the position!!”

Feh!!


314 posted on 03/09/2013 10:47:29 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk; All
This is birther nonsense.
Not a single judge, not a single immigration attorney, not a single member of Congress agrees with you Birthers on this stuff.
You are wrong!
Natural Born Citizen means CITIZEN AT BIRTH and NOTHING ELSE!
315 posted on 03/09/2013 10:47:58 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
If you think quotes from over 200 years of Constitutional Law (and some emanating from the Library of Congress) are just ‘some opinion from a book’, there IS no hope for you.

You obviously do not understand Natural Law is OUTSIDE the boundaries of the federal government. It was all based on the fact citizenship emanated from the STATES. You were a citizen of the United States because you were a citizen of one of the States. The Founders NEVER intended a Citizen of the united States to have that type of national aspect everyone acts as if it does today.

In simplistic words, you can't expect the Constitution to fix something that was NEVER broken, and since ignoring the Constitution is what created the problem in the first place, what good is 'fixing' it going to do?

316 posted on 03/09/2013 10:48:04 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: mylife
How the **** could he be a naturalized citizen when the country it self had yet to be born?

He wasn't.

When our founders formally adopted the U.S. Constitution, they granted U.S. citizenship to themselves and the citizens of each state within the colonies. Prior to that, there was no such thing as U.S. citizenship.

When the founders wrote Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, they acknowledged that there were then no natural-born citizens of the U.S., which is why they grandfathered themselves into being eligible for the presidency.

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.

317 posted on 03/09/2013 10:49:08 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: LUV W

Well, I think that is just wrong.
People on the front lines are denied access to the ladder?

That is just not right


318 posted on 03/09/2013 10:49:14 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
John McCain was born in the Canal Zone.

But he was still a Colon-birth.

319 posted on 03/09/2013 10:49:22 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter
Natural Born Citizen status only has relevence in regards to the qualifications for the Vice-President and the President of the United States. There is no 'right' to become President. The eligibility REQUIREMENTS were put in the Constitution to safeguard NATIONAL SECURITY, not to assuage the countless bedwetters whose feelings maybe hurt because their family or friends may not be eligible for the highest office in the land.

On FR, there are 2 types of perennial whiners regarding this issue:

1. The After-Birther Freeper mental defective league chronically rails against this requirement because they feel personally affronted by these Constitutional restrictions. It's a knee-jerk or neo-jerk emotional issue with these simpering malcontents.

2. The other half are longtime Trolls--Retreads......Obama loving knee-padding rumpswabs.


Vattel in Bk 1 Sec 212, states the following.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country,it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.









Is there any question why the Framers put the natural born Citizen requirement in the Constitution?

320 posted on 03/09/2013 10:49:48 AM PST by Electric Graffiti (STERILIZE OBAMA VOTERS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,561-1,579 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