Posted on 06/02/2014 12:34:53 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I thought that was a good rebuttal to the four cases you cited. Instead of rising to the challenge and making your case, you decide to insult people? Show us what you’re got. If you really believe the supreme court rulings support your convention, then pull out the the passage that proves it limits it to just your perspective.
Disgusting comment. These are good highly conservative Freepers. Too bad we don't have an ignore button dipshit.
Are you kidding? sten is better constitutional expert against one of the best in the entire country. /s (Cruz)
FACT: He was born to American Citizen parents.
FACT: This makes him a natural-born citizen whether he was Chicago, Calgary, or Clavius Dome on the Moon.
if two Canadians gave birth to a child in NYC, the child would be an American citizen as well as a Canadian citizen... but not a natural born citizen of either, as a choice is available
if this were allowed, then Kate and prince William could have flown to NYC, had their kid, and flown home with the distinct possibility of the future king of England also being eligible to be president of the US.
this is precisely the situation the founders wanted to avoid by using that exact term for that exact requirement
there is no two ways around it
I’ve been over this with the 0bama bots and GOPe types here in 2008 and 2012.
there is not point going over it again, this time for a canadian citizen, as ignorance rules the day.
you’re sounding a bit defensive... you must realize I’m right
stop calling yourself a conservative or a patriot if you won’t stand up for the founding document in the most basic situation. only libs believe it’s a ‘living document’
You only hurt your cause when you call those who disagree with you Obama bots and GOPe. I doubt they have interest in making Cruz eligible. I have not studied this in depth, but on the surface it seems the ineligible side has flooded links with little in-depth analysis.
in-depth analysis for a commonly defined word??
look to the Constitution and find me an exact definition of the terms ‘life’, ‘liberty’, or ‘pursuit of happiness’ ... you won’t find it.
yet, in this thread alone, 4 supreme court opinions have been shown describing/discussing the qualifications to be a NBC. additionally, i’ve pointed out the opposite case of foreign citizens having a kid here and potentially being a king of another country while also the POTUS... the main reason the founders chose the term NBC.
the information is plain as day. it’s up to you to do the homework.
stop calling yourself a conservative or a patriot if you won’t stand up for the founding document in the most basic situation. only libs believe it’s a ‘living document’
What I stated pretty much is consistent with what the founder of this site has also stated. Would you like to make the same comment to him?
Didn't think so. You are anything but a conservative. You are nothing but a GOP(e) statist.
You are only embarrassing yourself here.
what I’ve stated i would state to anyone. that’s the benefit of working with logic and not emotion
once again, a natural born citizen is someone that is a citizen naturally... as there are no alternatives.
period.
doesn’t matter how great a speaker he is, how many people support him, or how cute he looks in a suit. facts are facts.
trying to work around it to get your guy elected just shows you’re not interested in the Constitution but whatever it takes to get your guy in. again, that’s not what a conservative or patriot would do... as neither would dispense with the founding document when it became inconvenient
the reason we’re in this mess today is because people wouldn’t adhere to the law... something as simple as requiring proof of NBC status. then they get outraged when 0bama and crew break the law daily. hilarious
Sure, if you prefer some other candidate, go for it -- but use valid arguments for why your guy is better.
amazing. you can explain it to people 100 times, and they’re just committed to get ‘their guy’ in, no matter what.
the logic is simple.
the founders deliberately used the term ‘natural born citizen’ as requirement for the office of the president. the reason was to insure that, at least by birth, the office would only be held by an American. also, they wanted to insure that it would impossible for someone to be POTUS as well as some foreign king.
therefore, once again, it would not be possible for someone with multiple citizenship possibilities, at birth, to assume the office of the president. hence the term ‘natural born citizen’... as you have no alternative.
TCruz, MRubio, and BH0bama all had multiple citizenship possibilities at birth. they may be citizens of various countries, but they are natural born citizens of none.
people born in America to American parents don’t understand this, as they’ve never had the options.
as the son of a Scottish mother, on the day i was born in the US, i was an American citizen as well as British by decent... a term that allows me to hold dual citizenship... and 2 passports.
I, like TCruz, am not eligible under Article 2 Section 1.
just the facts
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.