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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 1,551-1,578 next last
To: B Knotts
"I think the idea that it requires being born on U.S. soil"

One citizenship is derived from one parents not ones place of birth. At least that is my view, and my argument for my children of illegals are not natural born citizens. And for why children born abroad of two US citizens in the service of our country or simply temporally away are natural born citizens.

251 posted on 03/09/2013 10:07:30 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias

Rafael Cruz didn’t ”escape from Cuba” because at the time he left, PRIOR to the Castro takeover, any Cuban could just pick up and leave whenever they wanted to. Cruz has deliberately misrepresented his father’s history in an attempt to tie him into the flight-from-communism diaspora. He was found out and confronted by an Austin newspaper.


252 posted on 03/09/2013 10:08:08 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

I am sincerely doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule Cruz eligible. They do not like over ruling a former Supreme court’s holding. See my post at #133.

The following is often used to support Marco Rubio, but the facts disputing the supporting argument can also be applies to Ted Cruz:

“The First U.S. Congress included in the 1790 Immigration & Naturalization Act language to alert the State Department to the fact that Americans born abroad are “natural born citizens” and are not to be viewed as foreigners due to foreign birth. They were not granted citizenship via that US statute rather their automatic citizenship was stated as a fact that must be recognized by immigration authorities. They were not citizens by any other means than natural law, and statutory law was written to insure that their natural citizenship was recognized.”

This is not a reasonable explanation. It fails to recognize that Congress only has powers over naturalization. Congress has no power to define “natural born Citizen”, which has nothing to do with naturalization. Furthermore, if Congress wants to tell the State Department something, they don’t have to enact legislation to do it.

But more important is that all of the following naturalization acts, 1795, 1802, etc., were also passed to naturalize the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. And the words “natural born” were repealed in the 1795 Naturalization Act and never returned again.


253 posted on 03/09/2013 10:08:17 AM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Actually, the courts have never ruled on it. If the issue is ever presented to the courts (i.e. SCOTUS), I expect they will rule that citizenship granted at birth by statute does make one eligible for the presidency.

Such citizens enjoy the same rights as natural-born citizens except there are retention requirements.


254 posted on 03/09/2013 10:08:34 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: exit82
Van Buren??
255 posted on 03/09/2013 10:08:51 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

At this point who really gives a crap. I’d certainly prefer someone like Cruz to be POTUS then who we have, or McLame, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and a whole host of other RINOs.


256 posted on 03/09/2013 10:09:24 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exit82

Hmm... The U.S. Constitution was adopted in what? September of 1787, I recall? So, wouldn’t Martin Van Buren be covered under both the grandfather clause AND the Natural Born Citizen requirement?

Just wondering.

Cheers!


257 posted on 03/09/2013 10:10:15 AM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama sucks. End of story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
I have been here a long time and that is one of the dumbest comments I've ever read. This is a Republic and it is governed by laws, not mob rule!

Yes, America is governed by laws and the law is that the voters and their electors rule upon the qualifications of candidates.

If you want to live in a country in which some special elite group gets to decide who can run for president, you should move to Iran where all candidates must be approved by their "Guardian Council." We don't have any Guardian Councils in this country. Presidents are picked by electors and electors are picked by the voters.

If you don't like our system, then amend the Constitution.

258 posted on 03/09/2013 10:10:45 AM PST by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

Insults are unnecessary.

The courts have never ruled on the issue. Statutory citizens at birth may or may not be eligible for the presidency. There is no definitive ruling and therefore no “Gospel.”


259 posted on 03/09/2013 10:11:09 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Marie

“He’s not a natural born citizen.”

Wrong. If he was born to parents who were citizens and one was overseas on military orders that is still considered natural born.

McCain meets those criteria as he was born in Panama.


260 posted on 03/09/2013 10:11:29 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

Actually, no.

Even if both parents are natural or native US citizens, and they while travelling abroad etc have a child, the child may not be a natural born US citizen by virtue of the country of birth.

Only persons abroad on Official US duty are provided that specific relief for a child born overseas in conjunction with that duty.

Simply travelling aboard is not included.

US Immigration laws cover these issues and you can dig in and find the citations if you want to....

Example, McCain was born to US parents who were serving in the Canal zone, so by virtue of that duty, John is a natural US citizen. My son was born in West Germany while I was stationed there, his birth is recorded by the US consulate and he is a natural and native born US citizen by virtue of the same duty as Adm. McCain.

Joe and Sally hanging out in Italy for the summer having a child is not the same.

Best;


261 posted on 03/09/2013 10:11:39 AM PST by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Marie

Actually, McCain wasn’t born on a base. He was born in a Panamanian hospital.


262 posted on 03/09/2013 10:11:54 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: stormer
You realize that was written before the US even exisited and has no bearing or authority in US law.

Please see my post #230 for a rebuttal of that erroneous assumption.

263 posted on 03/09/2013 10:12:06 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: paterfamilias
I am not sure if the laws at the time would make Cruz a “natural born citizen” for the purposes of eligibility for Presidency - any legal scholars here?

I have read and studied enough on this point that I think I can qualify to give as authoritative opinion as exists.

That almost everyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen (yes, that includes Obama) is SETTLED LAW. There is a very good reason why the US Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to review any of the Obama cases that have reached them. It's settled. Children born on US soil are natural born citizens. Their parents' citizenship DOES NOT MATTER.

Legally speaking, Ted Cruz's case is SLIGHTLY more iffy, as there does not seem to have ever been a clear and explicit decision. But the entire weight of legal opinion seems to be that "natural born citizen" is equivalent to "US citizen at or by birth."

Therefore it seems very, very likely that if Ted Cruz were to run and be elected President, he would be declared to meet the Constitutional qualification as well.

Or, to put it more simply: Yes, almost certainly, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

264 posted on 03/09/2013 10:12:29 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

Fox propaganda, who’d have thought it?


265 posted on 03/09/2013 10:13:22 AM PST by swamprebel (a Constitution once changed from Freedom, can never be restored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

You are correct. What most people refuse to understand is that at the TIME the Constitution was signed there was NO dual citizenship at all. Not in Great Britain or in the new US. Sorry you all-inclusive people, but that is an absolute fact.

For the under-informed:

AFTER the US Constitution was ratified a law had to be created to deal with children born to US citizens traveling off of US soil. A law (Act) had to be CREATED. The first Act dealing with such allowed that a child born to a US citizen FATHER (I know men don’t have babies, so don’t be stupid) born abroad was a citizen BUT the child had to declare his/her allegiance at the age of 21 - because back then some countries claimed that ANY child born there (unless to an Ambassador) was a subject/citizen of that country. And back then if a alien woman married a citizen man, she took on his character (country). Later legislators changed the language to include that either/or/both parents being US citizens could pass US citizenship to the child. That was done for several reasons-won’t detail now. Keep on mind all of this was done well AFTER the Constitution was ratified. And that child born abroad would still be required to declare allegiance at 21 years of age.

The thing is that there was NO dual citizenship in the US back then. Technically there is none officially recognized now either. Look that up - it’s easy. Although the US does not officially recognize dual citizens, they do not actively discourage it either.

Consider the original wording in Article 2 only required the President “unless he now be a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” That was the exact wording. They felt it was not restrictive enough and so it was changed.

NONE of the post 1787 Acts or laws/amendments was ever intended to change the Article 2 requirement. In fact, it is easily found in the old literature of that time that there were only two types of US citizens, natural or created by statue.

Binney (2nd edition):
“THE ALIENIGENE
OF THE UNITED STATES.
IT does not, probably, occur to the American families
who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remain-
ing there, frequently, for a year or more, that all their
children born in a foreign country, are ALIENS, and
when they return home, will return under all the disa-
bilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case ; for
it is not worth while to consider the only exception to
this rule that exists under the laws of the United States,
viz., the case of a ‘child so born, whose parents were
citizens of the United States, on or before the 14th of
April, 1802.”

AND: “The state of the law in the United States is easily
deduced. -The notion that there is any common law
principle to naturalize the children born in foreign
countries, of native-born American father and mother,
father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and
never was any such common law principle. But the
common law principle of allegiance, was the law of all
the States at the time of the Revolution, and at the
adoption of the Constitution; and by that principle the
citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions
before mentioned, such only as are either born or made
so, born within the limits and under the urisdiction of
the United States, or naturalized by the authority of
law, either in one of the States before the Constitution,
or since that time, by virtue of an Act of the Congress
of the United States.”

The thing we must not lose sight of is the meaning at the time of the signing of the Constitution. That is what is important.

Acts have been passed to address children born to citizens abroad that give those children the “same rights” as a natural born citizen, but those rights are assigned through a legal statue, they are not naturally occurring. Again,

“citizens of the United States are, with the exceptions
before mentioned, such only as are either born or made
so, born within the limits and under the jurisdiction of
the United States, or naturalized by the authority of
law,”


266 posted on 03/09/2013 10:13:27 AM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll
I am sincerely doubtful that the U.S. Supreme Court would rule Cruz eligible.

You're right, the Supreme Court may not touch the issue unless some other court rules against Cruz along the way. My point is that no one is going to stop Ted Cruz from running for President on eligibility grounds - not the legislature and not the courts.

267 posted on 03/09/2013 10:13:53 AM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: chaosagent; Old Retired Army Guy

And the McCain case is different in another way — he was born in Panama, but it was a military base thing; it is somewhat reasonable to treat foreign American military bases as if they are “U.S. Soil”, just as you would treat the Embassy as being born on U.S. soil.

The real issue is that the PURPOSE of having the rule makes little sense in regards to some of these particular cases.

The idea was that they wanted people who grew up in the United States, not people who lived their lives in another country and would be swayed by that country.

And when the country was founded, it would be highly unlikely any woman would be “vacationing” in a different country and have their baby. You really didn’t travel that much.

Today, anybody can hope in a plane, and be around the world tomorrow. And be back the next day.

Did Cruz live any significant time in Canada? Then I would argue he is ineligible by the intent of the constitution.

But certainly if someone was on vacation and had a child, and then brought the child home at the end of the vacation, I’d say that the INTENT of the constitutional law is met.

I also do think the congress would have the right, within limits, to define the parameters of “natural born citizen”.

The problem I had with the Obama questions is this — suppose a woman is single, and has a baby through a sperm bank.

Does that child then have to prove the father was an american citizen to be eligible for President? Some here would argue yes — that BOTH parents must by American. I’m not so sure. I don’t see where the intent (that you don’t have parents who have divided loyalties) would be an issue if the father was unknown.

Imagine if Ronald Reagan, the day before he was sworn in, we found out his mother had actually had an affair with a foreign actor, and Reagan was HIS son. Would he have then been ineligible? I think not.


268 posted on 03/09/2013 10:14:44 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
He didn't have to naturalize.

And that, my friend, should put a stop to this discussion. But it won't.

269 posted on 03/09/2013 10:15:30 AM PST by BfloGuy (The final outcome of the credit expansion is general impoverishment. -Ludwig von Mises)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts; aruanan
I don’t know if I buy the idea that parents must *both* be citizens.

Here it is: (emphasis added)

>>It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parentS within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.<<

270 posted on 03/09/2013 10:15:45 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Marie

Mccain.was not born on a base.


271 posted on 03/09/2013 10:15:59 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
lol, you really are dense! You are the one subverting the Constitution! I'm the one defending it. How old are you?

"Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

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.

272 posted on 03/09/2013 10:16:06 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

your child is a US citizen ....this kind of crappola has got to stop. It makes people look ridiculous AND it weakens any argument that might have been made against The One


273 posted on 03/09/2013 10:16:50 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zuse
At this point even an anchor baby could become president.

This wasn't made an issue for Bill Richardson when he ran for President.

274 posted on 03/09/2013 10:16:57 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ken in texas
Where does your citizenship come from?

Is it from your mother? Is it from your father?

Is it from the country where you are born?

Is your citizenship a statement of your legal residency? A statement of who claims jurisdiction over you and/or your resources?

Is citizenship a statement of your inner loyalty?

The highest standard, the definition that best combines all those possibilities and offers the best chance for legal and inner loyalty to the country, is that of being born in country to citizen parents.

It doesn't guarantee loyalty, nothing does, but it offers the best hope for that loyalty and no competing or potential legal claims to it.

If you wanted to start a nation in a hostile world after winning freedom from a powerful nation, what standard would you choose for the highest, most powerful single person in charge of that country? You'd choose the highest, most legally clean and pure standard possible.

275 posted on 03/09/2013 10:19:11 AM PST by GBA (Here in the Matrix, life is but a dream.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
If the Supreme Court wants to take on the issue of NBC and put forth a new definition then fine I’ll be happy to abide by it but the last time they took on the issue in 1870 (Minor vs Happerset) they ruled born in the US of two US citizen parents.

This is simply not true. Minor v Happersett had one or two sentences that might POSSIBLY have been relevant, and those sentences were interpreted by a later Supreme Court to mean that the Minor Court was NOT "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The purpose 14th Amendment was to ensure equal application of the rule for who was and was not a citizen by birth, i.e., a natural born citizen.

So in essence, the later Court quoted Minor v Happersett to make a point that was AGAINST the two-citizen-parent claim, NOT in favor of it.

The case that actually established the existing precedent was US v Wong Kim Ark, in 1898. That precedent is that pretty much any child born on US soil is a natural born citizen. And that is settled law. No credible authorities on either side of the aisle give any credence to claims otherwise.

276 posted on 03/09/2013 10:19:53 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

Canada does grant citizenship based on birth. A friend I grew up with was born in Montreal because her US parents were working there that year. Not only does she have a Canadian as well as a US passport, but her children, who have never been to Canada have Canadian passports.


277 posted on 03/09/2013 10:21:29 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

No, it isn’t. See post 214 for details.


278 posted on 03/09/2013 10:22:13 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan; All
What's strange is that you are full of pronouncements yet lacking in any apparent historical knowledge of anything touching on these matters, even though, in the year around Barry's election, there was a great deal written right here in FR about every one of these things.

Asking questions you are yourself not willing to answer is a debating technique used to make it appear those you are addressing are unable to answer in a way detrimental to your case and, thus, that you must be correct.

It also preys on the ignorance of those who, perhaps, were not here during that time and are unaware of everything that had been discussed on these matters ad nauseum.

And it's a little misleading, in part, such as the "can they explain the other Presidents [sic] (ie NOT Obama) that didn't meet their Natural Born Citizen criteria?"

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jackson, and Harrison didn't meet the "natural born citizen" criteria because they were born before the founding, though they did meet the Constitutional requirements that specifically addressed this. Since then only Chester Arthur and Barry have been the only ones who have not; Arthur, because his father was still a Canadian citizen at the time of Chester's birth in the U.S.: and Barry, who has not demonstrated a U.S. birth in any but a belated, fraudulent manner, whose putative father was not at the time nor ever did become a U.S. citizen, and who, through his own words, declared himself to have been born abroad in Kenya to parents only one of which was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth (he did this in the author's blurb he wrote for one of his books).


279 posted on 03/09/2013 10:22:26 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Fact is, that all the birther debate DID NOT STOP OBAMA.

Birthers still believe they're only one lawsuit away from Obama being dragged out of the White House in handcuffs, deported to Kenya and every action he took as president nullified.

Just as soon as Orly figures out how to properly file a brief.

280 posted on 03/09/2013 10:23:30 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Constitutional fixes in the here and now is what is needed...not some opinion from a book!


281 posted on 03/09/2013 10:24:10 AM PST by mdmathis6 (Rest assured, Mankind is loved....both completely and severely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: swamprebel
Fox propaganda,

Here, I think, Fox is the tool. Hillary2016 or Johnsey Grahamcain is behind this; they might have even sent minions about to stir things up.

282 posted on 03/09/2013 10:25:12 AM PST by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Marie
John McCain was born on base. It was declared ‘US soil’, thus he is eligible. My son was born in a German hospital. He is not. He was born on foreign soil.

Yes. Children of service members who are born abroad of two US Citizen parents are NOT eligible to be POTUS. (At least that’s what I was told by the US Embassy when my son was born.)


And yet Congress in 1790 enacted legislation stating those born abroad to U.S. citizens to be "natural born citizens" and, thus, according to the language of the Constitution, eligible to be POTUS.
283 posted on 03/09/2013 10:25:31 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Thank you!!!! I like Jindal too, but he is not eligible. What happened with Obama was an abomination that must be brought to light and rooted out.


284 posted on 03/09/2013 10:26:02 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mylife

“Look, this entire NBC thing is not the cornerstone of America.”

Hmmm… let me think for a moment.
Oh, I got it!

It’s ok to throw out the parts of the Constitution that WE don’t like or want to bypass to further our interests, but….

…. when the other side does exactly that, that’s “subverting the Constitution!” and should not be permitted, eh?

If the Constitution isn’t “the cornerstone of America”, what is?


285 posted on 03/09/2013 10:26:18 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Did Cruz live any significant time in Canada?

When I was a baby I lived in a boiler shed.

That Don't make me a piece of coal or homeless.
It was a transitional time. My parents were building a house, they had allegiances to the neighborhood. Some asshole wagging his finger and saying you had no address at age 2 mos does not make me not an American.

286 posted on 03/09/2013 10:26:24 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
It’s strange that all these birthers are experts are the natural born citizen clause, but have nothing to support it in case law or from the writings of the Framers.

Yeah, they're real experts, all right.

And you're correct. They have absolutely nothing to support the position from case law or the writings of the Framers.

It all began when people started twisting the Constitution because they didn't like Obama. Unfortunately, that was tolerated.

Their Constitution-twisting never hurt Obama in the least, but now it threatens to hurt us.

287 posted on 03/09/2013 10:26:29 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

How could George Washington be a naturalized citizen if he was born before the nation?


288 posted on 03/09/2013 10:28:34 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.

Which is exactly what Vattel said in § 215. - 'By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular'.

-----

Coincidentally (or not) the laws of the Republic of Kenya say pretty much the same-

Chapter 6 - Citizenship - Section 87
Persons who became citizens on 12th December, 1963
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on llth December. 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963: Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is on llth December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1). become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. 1963.

Obama, being a natural born British subject, was 'grandfathered' into the Republic of Kenya with his father....just as the Founders were 'grandfathered' into our own Constitution!

-----

Honestly, I don't know if the Founders would laugh or just shoot us for how we've taken a very simplistic concept and convoluted it almost beyond recognition.

Natural born citizenship is independent of location and strictly hereditary ....you get it from your parents. If they are both not citizens at the time of your birth, you are NOT 'natural born'.

289 posted on 03/09/2013 10:29:23 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: HawkHogan
It’s strange that all these birthers are experts are the natural born citizen clause, but have nothing to support it in case law or from the writings of the Framers.

Yes, it certainly is.

I'm not saying all of the birthers are trolls trying to exploit a division in conservative ranks, but I'll bet a lot of them are.

It's a myth that if SCOTUS ruled once and for all on the meaning of "natural born citizen", it would satisfy the birthers. It absolutely WOULD NOT satisfy them and they would claim conspiracy (John Roberts got death threats was a common one in the aftermath of the ACA ruling) or else jury nullification.

Nothing will satisfy the birthers because they know the issue sows dissension. Just like liberals never want workable solutions to any of the crises they're always screaming about. They want the problems to stay front and center so they can use them for political power.

290 posted on 03/09/2013 10:30:05 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Technically they couldn’t have been nbC simply because their parents, although born in this country, were born subjects of England.


291 posted on 03/09/2013 10:31:05 AM PST by Ladysforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Bingo!!


292 posted on 03/09/2013 10:31:31 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: mylife

If you had read the constitution, you would know that there is a section that specifically addresses the issue of tjose born before the creation of the United States.


293 posted on 03/09/2013 10:31:32 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
John Quincy Adams' wife (Louisa Catherine Johnson) may have been considered an American because of her father. They were married in London in 1797 and only came to the US in 1801. Charles Francis Adams was born in 1807. I don't know if his mother became a naturalized citizen or if that was considered unnecessary.

I liked what I saw of Ted Cruz during the filibuster--more impressive than Marco Rubio. His father came to the US in 1957, 13 years before he was born, and eventually became a US citizen, but I don't know when that happened. If it was after 1970, the Democrats are sure to claim that Cruz is not eligible to become President.

294 posted on 03/09/2013 10:34:46 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

295 posted on 03/09/2013 10:35:36 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

You know? I quite honestly would not begrudge my neighbor of Mexican roots the presidency if he was a conservative that believed in the ideals of the Nation and declared himself proudly an AMERICAN.

This is my test.

Obama failed this test miserably.


296 posted on 03/09/2013 10:35:42 AM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

This past national election cycle, my State of Washington had at least two foreign nationals on the ballot as candidates for President. No way was either eligible.

I firmly believe that the eligibility requirements for national offices - House of Representatives, Senate, President and Vice President - must be addressed at the state level. All aspiring candidates must PROVE they meet the Federal Constitution’s eligibility requirements. Otherwise we will continue to see our sovereignty hacked away by Progressives and Globalsists.


297 posted on 03/09/2013 10:35:57 AM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Depends on how far away from Quebec one is.....

No, actually they are too.

So are Eskimos, Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans.

298 posted on 03/09/2013 10:36:53 AM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
If he runs I'd bet, if they take the case at all, the courts (ultimately the Supreme Court if necessary) will rule Cruz eligible.

I'd be willing to take that bet as well.

299 posted on 03/09/2013 10:37:33 AM PST by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: mylife

My information has it that Cruz’s father was a Cuban living in Canada when Ted was born and who actually supported Castro for a time.


300 posted on 03/09/2013 10:37:34 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350 ... 1,551-1,578 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