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.
Seems pretty arbitrary.
“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?
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.
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.
Very useful information in that post. Thanks...
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
Martin Van Buren was born in 1782, after the Declaration of Independence but before the Constitution was adopted.
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!!”
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?
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.
Well, I think that is just wrong.
People on the front lines are denied access to the ladder?
That is just not right
But he was still a Colon-birth.
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?