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.
Yes, you have Perdogg's word on it. That's all you need!
He wouldn't steer you wrong on this. He might not know what he's talking about, but he has good intentions!
I think they did the best they could and compromised where absolutely necessary to make it happen.
I don't think they thought they got it exactly right or believed that they had thought of everything. That's why they gave us the means to make changes.
I believe we owe it to them, and to ourselves, to be as deliberate in considering all aspects of issues as they were as well as honoring their intent and purpose.
Had we the wisdom to do so, we would have avoided Barry Soetoro and whatever his citizenship might be along with the fun of these last few years, not to mention the aftermath for however many more to come.
Instead, we get some detention after the school of hard knocks works us over some more. We used to know this stuff.
1. What nationality was his father ???
2. What was Mom doing in Canada ???
3 how long did Mom live in Canada ???
4 how old was Ted when he immigrated to the US from Canada ???
5. When did such a ready convenient status of being called an American citizen regardless of birth begin ???
Well, that's five but who's counting?
2. Working for an American petroleum company
3. I don't know
4. Four years old
5. 1952. Immigration and Nationalization Act, Section 301(g)
Then Cruz would be a dual citizen and not NBC.
Makes me wonder if this was started to get the issue of dual citizen not being eligible for president into the national conversation.
Well that proves it then. A man's supporters can't be wrong.
Of course, I supported John McCain in the Republican primary without having the slightest clue that he wasn't born in the United States. Had I known it, It would likely have changed my decision to support him.
Apart from that, Historically the mother's citizenship is irrelevant. Only the father's citizenship mattered until 1922 when the Cable act allowed women to transfer citizenship, and in 1934 when the "Women's Citizenship act" strengthened this ability.
My tagline was the defacto legal doctrine governing citizenship for most of this nation's existence.
The article is badly researched. The 14th Amendment doesn't mention American's born abroad or Americans. It only mentions people who are born IN the United States. Therefore, since Cruz was NOT born in the United States, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to him, and his citizenship must have derived from a source OTHER than the Fourteenth Amendment. Either through another statute entirely, or from being born a Natural born citizen.
In my opinion, if Cruz's parents were both US citizens at the time of his birth, and if they had both resided at some point within the US, then Cruz would likely be a "natural born citizen under the original intent of the US Constitution.
If Obama was not held to these standards, why do you and Fox want to crucify Cruz?
There could be room for debate and interpretation, but I think for most people here, it's about principle and honor. From a moral perspective two wrongs don't make a right. (Just because someone got away with committing a wrong doesn't mean that it is okay to counter with another wrong.) Many people have taken oaths to defend the constitution, and thus they are bound by honor and oath to not support something that they believe will undermine the Constitution. It could thus be argued that if they were to support someone for president whom they sincerely believed to be an unconstitutional candidate, then they would be hypocrites and oath breakers.
I very clearly stated that there are only two classes of citizenship. We do not disagree on that. I’m not sure what you think I am wrong about.
Chester Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen at the time of Chester’s birth, not Canadian.
Oops. This would be the Immigration and NATIONALITY Act.
Vattel actually says they are.
I knew this would happen to GOP candidates in 2016, the left will challenge their eligibility. lolz, they are that hypocritical.
Again, no argument, but travel was probably not generally undertaken for the pure enjoyment of it. Your earlier description of it as a three input AND gate is apt, and I suspect they would have included an OR or two had they envisioned the world today.
Vattel agrees with you.
It may involve going to the nearest American embassy and filling out some paperwork, nothing more.
But again, whether or not the newborn gains full natural-born citizenship may not be automatic, but rather established by the actions of the parents in a timely manner after the birth.
I welcome correction from others in this forum.
So the $64 question is was specific action required by Ted Cruz parents required to establish natural-born citizenship after his foreign birth, and (if so), did his parents take such action in a timely manner?
Does it occur to you that if someone is "natural born" that no action is required or needed? If you have to take some sort of action, then it isn't "natural."
FRiend, you have no idea what you’re talking about. That section of the FA manual is not addressing only the children of foreign nationals. It deals with ALL claims of citizenship on U.S. soil.
It goes on to define what, exactly, is considered U.S. soil. It gets so specific that it defines when birth on a military vessel is considered birth on U.S. soil. (BTW: international waters = no.)
Yes, Ax’s children are citizens at birth. No one is disputing that. According to the State Dept., that does not, however, automatically grant them eligibility under the Constitution for the presidency. The courts have not ruled on the eligibility of those granted citizenship at birth by statute.
Fox news sucks. I no longer watch them. I have even quit listening to Rush. I have had it with all of them. The RINOs, the loud mouths, all of them. They all make me sick to my stomach and I have just quit listening to any of them. I come here to find out what is going on in the world. I agree and of course disagree with what a lot post here, but at least here, we are mostly of the same shade, Red, White, and Blue.
If the citizen is your father, then you would be qualified under the original meaning of Article II.
The Citizenship of the mothers was irrelevant until 1922. The legal doctrine in effect was "Partus Sequitur Patrem."
(Citizenship follows Father.)
This thread is a perfect example of why conservatism hasn’t progressed in the hundred years except for part of Reagan’s term.
Our country is burning and ‘conservatives’ are arguing about irrelevant minutia.
Ted Cruz is more of an American then 90% of the people already in Congress or the Executive Branch. We’re lucky to have him as a Senator and would be even more fortunate to have him as President.
Yes it’s sad.
The reign of Sultan Baraq is a period in which FReepers (out of frustration perhaps) bicker with each other rather than take on the enemy.
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.