Posted on 05/06/2013 7:09:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
Do you agree that Cruz was a citizen at birth in accordance with the natural law principle of jus sanguinis?
Making Cruz ineligible while maintaining Obama’s eligibility would be a task that even the liberal logical contortionists couldn’t perform. And declaring Obama ineligible ex post facto would undo every action he performed as an illegal president. That would lead, for starters, to the end of Obamacare, and the removal of some very liberal judges, two of whom are on the Supreme Court.
Hmm, a “Cruz Gambit”, that could be interesting...
He not eligible because he’s not a NBC so why do they keep bringing it up? Interesting how the msm is getting antsy about Cruz this far out when they totally ignored hussein’s lack of eligibility.
Because they are scared shiftless about Cruz, he seems to be for the moment immune to “potomac fever”...
First governor of Texas, then President of the US.
Ummm, I believe that the law was changed since the ‘60s....so as to make anyone, born anywhere....to one parent who is a citizen, considered a “natural born citizen.”
Where it gets fuzzy, is that the only place (again, I believe) in federal law where being a “natural born” citizen matters is for candidates of the presidency.
If I recall, one of the issues with Mr. Obama’s birth is that in 1961, at his birth, the law required a natural born citizen required one to be born within US territory—hence the frenzy to prove he was born in Hawaii (and the frenzy by opponents to try to prove he was born elsewhere). Since federal law NOW though, doesn’t require an in-country birth, but only one citizen as a parent....it gets murky.
(Of course the other issue the Birthers clamp onto is whether the young Obama lost his citizenship, when he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father...and how, if he was a US Citizen...with a US passport, he traveled to Pakistan in the ‘80s when that was illegal by US law AND Pakistani law).
All in all though, the elites in our government and courts—have decided that Mr. Obama’s natural born status is a technicality, and they will not enforce such a small law, which is arguable....since it would mean a constitutional crises.
What we REALLY need to do though, is not to worry about the fantasy of forcing him out due to his birth status...rather to make sure the House is held by the Repubs in ‘14, or else we really could face a real constitutional crises, should Obama and the Dems hold unfettered power....
My question is pointed to Cruz’s parents, so there.
There are three possible issues bearing on whether a person is NBC.
A. Born on US soil.
B. One parent a US citizen.
C. Both parents US citizens.
A, B and C: Everybody agrees NBC.
A only: I think NBC, but questionable, should be settled by SCOTUS.
A and B: IMO natural born. This is Obama.
C only: This is Cruz. Born outside US to one citizen parent. Should be settled by SCOTUS, IMO. In any case, he has less definitive claim to NBC than Obama.
C only: This arguably applied to McCain. Should be settled by SCOTUS, IMO.
Cruz is a statutory citizen. His citizenship is described in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, as amended. You can’t be NBC and derive your citizenship status from an Immigration law.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
My great great grandfather was born in Canada...Grantham/St Catherines, Ontario...
His mother was an American born in the US of American parents, Vermont...
His father was born in Canada of American parents and grandparents...New Rochelle, NY and Herkimer County..
Yeppers he must have been eligible to be POTUS...
Then he is a dual citizen, inherited from his father, not NBC.
Then that settles it. I asked the question because I did not know. You answered it to support your point which with that tidbit of information is correct.
Now, can Cruz be out there as a Trojan Horse on this issue, which is exactly what is happening. He so clearly is scaring the crap out of them, as evidenced by Corporal Cue Ball’s comments this weekend. So go ahead an draw the liberal birthers out and then they have made our point.
This is the time to address such issues not to sweep them under the rug and let the political process run this thing through another national election to the Electoral College where nothing is done.
Truth be known, the courts have abandoned their responsibility in this very important Constitutional matter. They know the confusion is one of Constitutional interpretation and their specific job is to interpret the Constitution. Just because a Constitutional issue has political ramifications doesn't get the courts off the hook. Consequently, they have caused grave damage to this country by their abdication of their sworn duty.
Anyone granted citizenship at birth by another nation - even if born to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil - would be ineligible for the Presidency according to your ‘reasoning’.
Most of our founders were natural born subjects of England according to English law. England considered all Americans subjects of England - thus their impressment of U.S. sailors on the high seas - until the war of 1812 decided the issue.
Was any American born between 1776 and 1812 not eligible for the Presidency because England considered them as English?
This is the time to address such issues not to sweep them under the rug and let the political process run this thing through another national election to the Electoral College where nothing is done.
Truth be known, the courts have abandoned their responsibility in this very important Constitutional matter. They know the confusion is one of Constitutional interpretation and their specific job is to interpret the Constitution. Just because a Constitutional issue has political ramifications doesn't get the courts off the hook. Consequently, they have caused grave damage to this country by their abdication of their sworn duty.
Is Vattel no longer an authority on what makes a natural born citizen?
It has nothing to due with law, you posited citizenship flows through the blood, ergo it becomes a birth right.
As Happerestt stated, a child born to two American Citizens on American soil is a NBC, there are doubts to the others.
You need to read the Constitution a little more carefully.
They specifically exempted themselves as they were Citizens at the time the Constitution was signed.
I knew there had to be a catch.
If dual citizenship at birth is a disqualification for being a natural born citizen - then Happerestt (sic) would be incorrect - there would be doubts even of a child born of two American citizens on American soil IF that child was also a dual citizen at birth.
Which is it?
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.