Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Am I supposed to respect birthers, who are detracting from the legitimate criticisms of Barack Obama?
Citizenship didn’t evolve; the circumstance allowing citizenship evolved by the ratification of the constitution, thus the conditions proposed therein came to be.
Just up on BirtherReport:
“Washington Examiner’s Byron York Declares
Canadian-Born Sen. Ted Cruz Eligible To Be President”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/spokesman-senator-cruz-is-a-u.s.-citizen-by-birth/article/2523832
“In the past few days, there has been renewed buzz on the Internet about the presidential eligibility of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz has only been in the Senate for about 60 days and does not appear to be behind any of the talk. But he has certainly been in the news in recent days, and in response to a request for comment, his spokesman, Sean Rushton, sent me this note:
“’Sen. Cruz is a U.S. citizen by birth, having been born in Calgary to an American-born mother. He is focused entirely on his new role in the Senate, and on working every day to represent Texas and defend conservative principles in the Senate.’”
“Any talk about Cruz follows years of discussion about birthplace and presidential eligibility involving President Obama, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Marco Rubio. The bottom line in the case of Cruz, who was born in Canada in 1970, is that his father was an immigrant from Cuba and not a U.S. citizen at the time of young Cruz’s birth, but his mother was born and raised in the United States. The law in effect then, and now, made Ted Cruz a U.S. citizen at birth. Although the drafters of the Constitution did not define what they meant when they required an American president to be a “natural born citizen,” it is generally thought that “citizen by birth” is the best modern-day equivalent. On that basis, Cruz appears entirely eligible — if he ever chooses to pursue the White House.”
SatinDoll’s post on this thread quoted and linked by BirtherReport:
“As SatinDoll points out at Free Republic: Three types of citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate. The following link will take you to the government’s own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.”
You haven’t posted any birther facts. No court cases. No legal works. You claim George Washington needed to be grandfathered in to become President, yet offer no proof. You ignore the difference between the generic ‘citizen’ and the more restricted NBS or NBC.
At some point, you need to stop making unfounded claims and answer some basic questions. Why did the grandfather clause allow ‘citizens’? Why didn’t they use NBS, if that was who they were grandfathering? And what case suggests that all NBS did not become NBC if they remained in the USA?
I cannot find a single court case discussing evolutionary citizenship, or suggesting that is what George Washington held. Feel free to correct me - with evidence. because so far, all you’ve done is called folks names. You have offered no proof of any kind.
An assertion, no matter how loudly it is shouted, is not a fact. Please try to find some facts.
If there a point with further arguing with the birthers? If you question their interpretation, they resort to calling you a traitor or faux-conservative. Jeff was smart getting out of the conversation when he did.
Obama’s lack of qualifying citizenship is the only legitimate fact making each and every act he has performed invalid and mute.
Jeff got out because he knew that he had lost his traitorious debate.
I’ll leave soon enough. This is where the usual birther suspects insist they have won by screaming. Yet I keep hoping that one will try to find a FACT, or a DECISION, or SOMETHING that shows that none of our original Presidents were considered NBCs of the USA.
You’ve posted no relevent fact to this thread.
Nothing but anti-constitutional excrement.
So will you admit that crusade against Cruz is just a thinly veiled criticism of Barack Obama’s legitimacy?
>> “SOMETHING that shows that none of our original Presidents were considered NBCs of the USA.” <<
.
The constitution fool, the constitution.
http://www.ourwhitehouse.org/prespgs/mvanburen.html
As far as natural born subjects remaining after the Revolution who refused allegiance to the United States, thus never becoming citizens at all let alone natural born ones, I'll say there were pockets of them in the mountains of NC and Virginia. A distant relation of mine was tracked down and hung as a Loyalist after the Articles Of Confederation.
Sources would be genealogical and I don't have ready access, but I'll be glad to post them tomorrow evening, just to disabuse you of these peculiar notions you're putting forth as indisputable.
Do they find it strange that no legal or Constitutional scholars support their definition?
Is Mark Levin a traitor too now?
Is everyone a traitor but the small contingency of birthers?
There is no crusade against Cruz. He stated clearly himself that he would be inelligible.
Those that coyly attempt to assert that he is are deliberate obfuscators. (and traitors)
Evwery one of you Obama troops is a traitor.
I guess it was Romneys father that brought the topic to the forefront in those days.
I still remember that woman standing there, where she was in the classroom, the expression on her face when she talked about it. She was standing, looking west, and looking oh so pretty. She explained it was kind of a mystery, as people poured over books to try to get the exact definition from the founders and were never successful.
I could go on and on about her black hair, blue eyes, long legs, high heels, curves, Chalk, erasers, etc. She was an expert with American history as she studied it in college.
She could have just asked Mr. Rogers.
Please provide the link. I’m quite certain he avoided the question.
Carl Cameron is the only one who asserted that Cruz is ineligible.
You’ve gone off the rails, Rogers.
Washington was a NBC?
WTF are you drinking?
Several have been outed repeatedly. Yet they stay.
If you do, then you'll be in a position to understand the purpose and intent of the Natural Born citizenship requirement, along with all the various definitions for citizenship and of them all, which one, no matter how the person's citizenship is defined or determined, does everyone agree about that person's citizenship?
That of being born in country to citizens of that country when you're born. No one else or country can claim you and you can't claim any other country or nationality based upon the circumstances of your birth and parentage.
That would be the most pure definition and likely the one the FFs would require for the highest, most powerful single person.
NBC: Born here to citizens from here when the kid is born here. That's a NBC, nothing else.
Obama ain't one of those, that makes him illegal and/or a fraud. You want to go after him? Start with that. It doesn't get much bigger than he isn't even eligible for the job.
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.