Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Praying for Spiritual Revival In America

It was a sight to behold inside a conference ballroom at the downtown Marriott hotel in Des Moines, Iowa, as hundreds of Iowa pastors called out to God and prayed over two U.S. senators, both of whom seem interested in running for president of the United States.

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul came to Iowa Friday to speak at this Pastors and Pews event, organized by influential evangelical political operative David Lane. The Brody File got an up close look and access to the private event. We will be posting compelling video early next week. For now, we are releasing a few pictures from the event.

I, for one, am for immigration reform. … That being said, I’m worried that the bill before us won’t pass.... [Rand Paul: I hate to say it, but the immigration bill is a little bit like ObamaCare right now ]
[Paul open to voting for Senate immigration bill]
[Rand Paul: I'm Open to Voting for Immigration Bill]
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers... [Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said. [Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance]
One day after announcing on his radio show that he is "truly considering" running in 2014 for the U.S. Senate seat now held by New Jersey's Frank Lautenberg, Rivera amped up his message today in a television interview and a column on the Fox News Latino website... a moderate Republican who is fiscally conservative but also supports gay marriage and Roe v. Wade... [Geraldo Rivera declares himself a 'moderate Republican' as he eyes U.S. Senate run]

Let's stop this Cruz for president RIGHT NOW! HE WAS BORN IN CANADA! PERIOD. I don't even care who his parents were or what they were doing in Canada, it doesn't matter.

Here we go again. “Natural Born Citizen” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The meaning, which the founding fathers knew quite well, was that the president, because of his position of Command in Chief, could not have strong foreign loyalties. The president had to be beyond reproach. Thus he had to be born in the United States. Not in an embassy, not in Panama, not in territories or possessions, not on a U.S ship or plane or foreign military base. UNITED STATES. A STATE. One of the United States.

AND BOTH his parents had to be United States citizens at the time of his birth.

Natural Born Citizen status is determined at the second of your birth. At that second, where are you? On U.S. soil in one of the United States? Are both your parents United States citizens? RIGHT NOW! If you can answer yes to those two questions you are eligible to be president by virtue of being a Natural Born Citizen.

I can hear, but, but, but. Sorry Charlie. Territories and possessions are a crap shoot. Some of them, you wouldn't even be a U.S. citizen. Puerto Rico, it depends on when you were born. Because these areas are not states, they are U.S. because of laws. That makes any of these people that are citizens, NATURALIZED citizens. Citizens by statute, not by birth. THEY WERE NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, as in one of the UNITED STATES.

But my parents were overseas in the military or foreign service. Sorry Charlie. That might make you a native born citizen, or you could say “a citizen at birth” as opposed to a naturalized citizen. Which really doesn't matter, because there is not difference in the value of these two types. We don't have a lesser class of citizenship. A “Natural Born Citizen” is not a different type of citizen. A Natural Born Citizen is a native born citizen, or a citizen by birth. BUT to be president, you have to meet stricter additional requirements because the job is that important. Your loyalties have to be beyond question.

It is unfortunate that the term “Natural Born Citizen” was used, it was a poor choice. It confuses people. It doesn't mean a third type of citizenship at all. It is just additional requirements to be president.

But, but, but, but what about the Naturalization Act of 1790? It was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Sorry Charlie.

But, but, but, but “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. Was in French! There were no English translations when they wrote the Constitution. Sorry Charlie, yes there were. In fact there were copies in the very library in the building where they wrote the Constitution. It was a book the framers knew well. It is “How to write a Constitution 101” or “Constitution Creating for Dummies”.
Read here about George Washington borrowing a copy and never returning it for 221 years owing $300,000.00 in late fees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2495732/posts

Don't forget to look at the John Jay letter to Washington about Natural Born Citizen.

Natural Born Citizen status applies to the vice president because of amendment XII

[Article. XII.]
[Proposed 1803; Ratified 1804]
“ ......But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”

One more But, but, but, but what about the 14th amendment.
Sorry Charlie, the name or phrase “Natural Born Citizen” appears NOWHERE in the 14th amendment. If anyone brings up the 14th amendment on this issue, stop right there, because anything else they say would be a waste of your time.

I am not a lawyer, I am not a scholar. I am not an expert. But I have spent countless hours researching this subject for years. I am POSITIVE this is what the framers meant and wanted in the Constitution, No, it's what they PUT IN the Constitution. I know many disagree. Some day the Supremes will render a decision on what the framers meant or what they want it to mean today. I can't do anything about that. Que Sera, Sera. What will be, will be. I will not be shaken from my position on this no matter what. So don't bother to write me, I won't look at it.

One last thing. Barack Obama is the perfect example of why the framers were afraid of a president, Command in Chief, with foreign loyalties and no real roots to the soil of the United States.

This definition was taken from the comment section an ABC story linked at this thread. ABC News: Senator Ted Cruz And 7 Other Politicians At The Heart Of Birther Conspiracies
The original comment can be read here by MMaschin

I did some formatting to make it easier to read.

The meaning of the term-of-art ‘natural born citizen’ has been addressed, and confirmed by the US Supreme Court. The idea that all persons who are a citizen at birth, are ‘natural born citizens’ can not possibly be accepted for the simple reason that NO part of the Constitution can be interpreted in such a way as to make any part of the Constitution irrelevant. What that means is that the Constitution MUST be interpreted in such a way that every word in relevant. The idea that ‘citizen at birth’ equates to ‘natural born citizen’ ignores the word ‘natural’. If the intention was otherwise, they would have simply said a ‘born citizen’, or a ‘citizen at birth’ or ‘born a citizen’. So it is clear they intended something else. So - what does the word ‘natural’ mean in the context of ‘natural born citizen’?

There are two types of law. There is ‘positive law’ - this is man-made law, such as the Constitution, laws from Congress, state law, local ordinances, and so on. And then there is ‘natural law’ - this is the law of nature, or the divine. An example would be when the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, and stated :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That is a form of natural law. So, the term ‘natural born citizen’ means EXACTLY what it says, a citizen at birth according to natural law.

OK - what is a citizen by natural law? Remember, a natural law is one that is unwritten. So a citizen by natural law, would be a citizen that would require no man made ‘positive’ law to be a citizen. So, when is someone a citizen without need of any positive law? When they can be nothing else. Does that sound familiar? Ever heard someone answer a question with the word ‘naturally’, because the answer could be nothing else? “Does Monday come after Sunday? Naturally!” Who can be nothing other than a citizen at birth, and therefore requires no positive law?

There are 4 basic variables governing citizenship.

Born in or out of a country.
Both parents are citizens.
One parent is a citizen.
Neither parent is a citizen.

The first (where born) is combined with the other 3 to determine whether or not a child is a citizen at birth. There are laws written to govern every situation - except one. The only situation not covered by positive law is when a child is born in a country, and both parents are citizens of that country. Why? Because no law is required, the child is a citizen ‘naturally’. Both sides want to ignore this FACT.

Maybe where a person is born shouldn’t really matter. I’ve seen many immigrants who are much more patriotic than natural born American’s. But there is a process to go thru if that is the case, and that process is the Amendment process. But that probably wouldn’t go through. So what do they do? They simply ignore that part of the Constitution. The real danger is what part do they decide to ignore next?

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.