Skip to comments.CRUZ releases birth certificate
Posted on 08/19/2013 6:05:19 AM PDT by praytell
click here to read article
You got a lawyer to express an opinion similar to yours. Not impressed. In fact, this lawyer, despite his degrees, is demonstratively incorrect in his first min of the video. Listen to the video, then go look at the acts of the First congress and read in the naturalization act what it says about “natural born citizens”.
and is therefore, a
natural born citizen.
So what is your opinion as to what constitutes a natural born citizen? Child of a US Citizen parent? Born in the US? What?
Actually most of those cases went to trial. The four lawsuits in Georgia went to a “trial on the merits” as did the New Jersey cases. Tracy Fair had a hearing and the chance to present evidence to a judge in Maryland. The Illinois ballot challenges had hearings before the Illinois Board of Elections.
Ankeny was an appeal of a case that went to trial in Indiana and Strunk had a trial in New York. Strunk angered the judge so much that the judge assessed $177,000 in court costs against him.
Lawsuit trials are not the same as criminal trials. They are often wrapped up in a single hearing.
You are revealing more and more the prep your obamaroid handlers have given to you to spew on the Internet. There are lots of democrips who are desperate for Cruz to be the nominee, so your assertion of supporting Cruz is a sham from the start, given the extensive obamanoid postings you’ve made since signing on here.
Because it was a secondary citizenship acquired for the purpose of commerce and had no affect on the primary American citizenship:
There is, however, some relaxation of the old and stern rule of the common law, required and admitted under the liberal influence of commerce. Though a natural born subject cannot throw off his allegiance, and is always amenable for criminal acts against his native country, yet for commercial purposes he may acquire the rights of a citizen of another country, and the place of domicil determines the character of a party as to trade.
James Kent , Commentaries
James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)
Really Jeff? Again with posting quotes with no sources?
Is it because you don't want people to read down to page 4 and see this was not a book of law but an instruction book for 'youth'?
Or to see that when you say the legal authorities 'approved' the work, (insinuating they agreed with everything Baynard said) they actually, did nothing more than to give their appoval of the project itself and it's purpose?
Why don't you source it, Jeff?
I want the strongest conservative candidate to oppose Chris Christie for the nomination. If that is Ted Cruz, he’ll have my support. If it isn’t Ted Cruz, whoever else emerges will have my support.
I believe that Obama was able to use the eligibility issue to his advantage with voting blocs that also have their citizenship status challenged: Asians and Latinos.
Obama was anticipating a loss of white indepndent voter support and a loss of black Christian support. He lost 4% white support from 2008 and he lost 3% of black support. But he increased his Asian support by 12% and his Latino support by 5% from what he got in 2008.
This is false. Natural born citizens are citizens regardless of what the naturalization statutes say.
Not unable, just not interested in citing them to you. You have such a disconnect that it would be a waste of time from my perspective. Anybody who keeps citing a NATURALIZATION statute as proof of "natural born" will very likely not accept anything which challenges their world view.
No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter or repeal a law of nature.
And see here? You're playing word games. If Ted Cruz didn't qualify by the rules of 1787, and according to you, he qualifies according to the rules of 1934, then it is a defacto alteration of what "n-a-t-u-r-a-l born" means.
You say you dont want to trade historical cites ... fine, start citing laws, or the Constitution.
And this is more proof that you simply can't grasp my point. You can't cite a LAW because no "law" is applicable. Laws cannot change nature.
You treat the words "Natural Born Citizen" like they can mean whatever we want them to mean. I treat them as having a specific and unalterable meaning.
As long as you think the meaning is flexible, you will be unable to grasp my point.
Why? As of now, nobody's stopping him. SCOTUS is an appeals court. They don't issue advisory opinions. Should Cruz decide to run and should a lower court find him ineligible, only then SCOTUS *might* get involved.
Child of two US Citizen parents. Born in the US, or in a foreign country while serving in the US military or other government service.
No. Historians are UNANIMOUS that Washington, Jefferson and Madison were not natural born citizens because they "grandfathered themselves in." They were natural born citizens because they were all born in the Colony of Virginia. They continued that natural born relationship with the Colony of Virginia as Virginia became a State and a member of the United States, and as "subjects" became "citizens."
Real historians are UNANIMOUS in this understanding. Only the uninformed, idiots and birthers (but I repeat myself) claim otherwise.
The best explanation of “Natural Born” can be found in post 13. A little common sense goes a long way in coming to the same conclusion however, since the reason for having the natural born citizen clause is to protect the country from infiltration by anyone who might possibly have an allegiance to someone other than the US. You don’t flip a coin with something like that. You don’t say oh maybe this guy is different. You set a black and white rule and you stick by it.
It was granted to each of those Presidents while they were adults - because unlike the citizenship of a child who was born in some foreign country (e.g., Canada), who then left that country permanently at age 4 and had no further relationship with that country at all (TED CRUZ), the citizenship status of THOSE Presidents came about because they had a REAL and MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP with the country of France.
In other words, Ted Cruz took absolutely no action to acquire his Canadian citizenship, and he has done absolutely nothing to maintain it.
Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison acquired their French citizenship because of their actual relationship, as adults, with the French nation.
The stronger claim of dual allegiance is on those who have an actual relationship with a foreign nation.
Since that was not in any way an impediment to Washington, Jefferson and Madison, not one of whom renounced their French citizenship, and every one of whom held their French citizenship during his term as President, then it can't be relevant for a person like Cruz, who HAS no such actual relationship.
Thanks also for noting that Bayard intended his Exposition of the Constitution to be "an instruction book for youth," and that it had "already been adopted in some colleges and seminaries."
What an amazing deceiver you are! You answered the question, then tried to spin the reality to fit your sick agenda of obamanoid apologetics! NBC is a birth thing, not conveyed in adulthood or cancelled by having honorary citizenship in some other country conveyed upon you. Go back under your rock, obamaroid.
Yes, and not one single significant authority of history or law, in the 225 years since our Constitution was ratified, has EVER said that there was any qualification to natural born citizenship and Presidential eligibility other than being born a citizen.
There's no requirement that no other country give citizenship to the person born a citizen. There's no requirement that the person have both citizen parents and birth on US soil.
If there had been any significant authority at any time in US history who had ever said either thing, you and the other birthers would've produced that quote by now. Instead, you've built your case on non-authorities (like Ramsay who was voted down 36 to 1 and still didn't say what you claim), on theories, and on assumptions that a Congressman who spoke about citizenship 75 years after the Constitution meant your idea of citizenship, when it's pretty clear that he didn't.
That resounding silence of anyone explicitly backing up your crackpot theories is very telling.
It tells the world, in fact, that your crackpot theories are exactly that.
LOL! It was a nice attempt...... trying to use my source concerning a voluntarily acquired citizenship obtained after reaching the age of majority for the purpose of commerce into some type of validation of you dual citizenship post.
Too bad your mechanizations are as transparent as water.
Couldn't agree more, Jim. Like you, I'm not totally sold on Cruz yet, but if he decides to run and he's the best conservative and strongest candidate... TO THE HILT.
Thanks for the comment!
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.