Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 08/30/2013 12:02:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Might
But you just did, when you claimed he wasn't naturalized.
As if that “IF” made him palatable. (Take that Bill!)
He is a natural citizen by birth.
Of Cuba, sure.
They didn't need to. Everyone at the time knew exactly what the phrase meant. It would be redundant (defining it) if it were already part of the 18th century Lexicon........which it was! That's why both definitions, Natural Born Citizen and Citizen appear in [Article II; Section I] of the Constitution. If there had been no difference in the meaning..... there would have been no need to include both terms!
Interesting.
In Canada NBC only requires a single citizen parent and doesn't require birth on Canadian soil.
You proudly attest to being an NBC of Canada while claim the lack of "common sense" here in the US when we use the same definition.
I don’t know what Cuba’s laws are with regards to citizenship.
I do know that Ted has never held any allegiance to Cuba.
I wonder if we have any Constitutional scholars here who could and would address that.
Highly doubtful. Many who take that position (no difference in the terminology) simply don't understand the difference.....so they cannot debate it....or intelligently address it.
‘I do know that Ted has never held any allegiance to Cuba.”
We don’t know that until Cuban law is checked. One thing we do no is he was born with allegiance to Canada.
John Jay
New York
July 25, 1787
[Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.]
Nice resume. And, like I said, I’m sure he’s a decent, sincere guy.
Which doesn’t change the fact that he supports the same immoral, unconstitutional, utilitarian, incrementalist strategy which has failed posterity for forty years now, because it is contrary to the most important foundational principles of this free republic, ie the laws of nature and nature’s God.
The unalienable nature of the individual right to life, and the necessary requirement that equal protection under the law be accorded every person, in every jurisdiction, is not negotiable.
If he would sincerely abandon this position, and prove it by his actions, I’d be pleased to consider him.
That was a letter written from the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to George Washington.
That’s why we need Governor Sarah Palin to run and become our next president. She is the epitome of what our founders wanted in a Commander-in-Chief to lead this nation. She exhibits the founders true meaning of a natural born Citizen, born to two U.S. patriotic Citizens.
Cruz renounces his Canadian privelige.
She hasn’t made any move toward running. Neither has Cruz for that matter. In the meantime, hope you haven’t decided to make this the hill you die on (FR account wise). Because if he does run and people like you come here trying to destroy his chances, your accounts here may suddenly go *poof* (assuming you still have one).
The letter I addressed to him last month on this subject:
United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,
Your demeanor and plain words on many subjects have been refreshing, Senator, since your election. But your support for the so-called ‘twenty week’ or “fetal pain” abortion legislation that was just passed in your home state, and which is similarly being proposed in the great national legislative body in which you now serve, is a huge disappointment. Such support destroys your credibility and disqualifies you.
Do you think it would be right, or just, or moral, or constitutional, if a “law” were passed that explicitly allowed all paraplegics to be shot to death, since they cannot “feel pain”?
Would a “law” that gave “legal” permission to kill elderly family members, as long as they were given enough morphine, be acceptable to you?
Because that is exactly what these sorts of bills are predicated upon. An arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, baseless, immoral claim concerning whether or not the victim can feel anything when they are destroyed at the vicious, bloody hands of the abortionists.
The Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
The Fourteenth Amendment:
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Personhood - what you intrinsically are, a unique person, made in God’s image and likeness - is the constitutional criteria, not “pain,” not calendar age, not stage of maturity or human development, not location, nor anything else.
America’s founders clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, our nation’s charter, that the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of EVERY PERSON, FROM THEIR CREATION, is the raison d’etre, the primary reason, for the existence of government.
“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 to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
And, the ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.”
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Any bill that grants express permission, as this legislation does, to kill certain disfavored classes of innocent persons, violates EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of that statement of purpose, in fact.
The equal protection of every innocent person within the United States, from the first moment of their physical creation, is NOT optional. IT IS IMPERATIVE, if you are to fulfill the obligations of the sacred oath that you swore to God Himself.
If you will not act according to that supremely important imperative, frankly, you’re not fit for any office of public trust. I must say, without any reservation, that you, and every one of your colleagues who agrees with you, should, if you will not immediately change your thinking, resign in shame and disgrace and go home. Let someone who understands the basics of the obligations of the oath serve in your stead.
If you, and ALL officers of government, in EVERY branch, at EVERY level, , as per the absolute requirement of Article Six of our Constitution, will not keep your oath to defend the unalienable, God-given right to life of EVERY innocent person, FROM CREATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH, there will soon be no America. You will have destroyed it, because a building cannot long stand without its foundations. And make no mistake, respect for the individual EQUAL right to live is that foundation.
The practices of abortion and euthanasia should not exist in a republic whose form of government, and law, and claim to liberty, is predicated on the foundation of the equal protection of unalienable, God-given natural individual rights, starting with the right to live.
“Don’t worrry they won’t feel a thing” is an immoral thing to say, Senator. It’s wrong.
Your position is actually a giant evil step beyond Roe vs. Wade, which was a mere court opinion. After all, even Blackmun admitted in that infamous majority opinion that if the “fetus,” or child, is a person, “of course” they are protected by our Constitution’s explicit equal protection requirement. You, on the other hand, admit to their personhood, and, contrary to the Constitution, grant express permission for certain disfavored classes of those persons to be murdered. You are embedding, codifying, “legal” permission to kill innocent people in our laws. This is, sir, a lawless, senseless, thing to do.
One last thing:
Since “laws” such as this are not according to right reason, being clearly immoral and a gross violation of the first and most important aspect of the natural law, they are null and void in any case. The wisest men throughout the history of western civilization, right up through the generation of the founders of this great republic we call America, rightly said so.
“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ...”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.
“Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
“Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever.”
“This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.”
— William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
“[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator.”
— Samuel Adams
“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”
— Alexander Hamilton
Please reconsider your immoral, unconstitutional position forthwith, Senator.
Very sincerely,
Tom Hoefling
Chairman, America’s Party
www.equalprotectionforposterity.com
tomhoefling@gmail.com
Frankly, I’m not at all satisfied with Governor Palin’s stated position vis a vis the required equal protection of the individual, unalienable right to live, either.
Stop already!
We know! You are the better candidate /s
Privilege? Why fudge? Just say "citizenship".
I’ve backed up my position with the words of the founding, without in any way making it personal. If you have to make it personal, that means you don’t have any actual arguments.
Canada considered him a citizen, I would wager that Ted never considered himself a citizen of Canada and has never afforded himself of that privilege.
Has he even held a Canadian Passport?
Give us a break. No one but you is good enough for you.
I have no idea. I just asked why you spin the terms.
I like TC, but call it what it is, citizenship, not "privilege".
My argument is that you and all the single issue types will never win a GENERAL election.
One has to stick to their values while not kicking other people in the teeth over theirs.
This has always been a problem with conservatives, Particularly social conservatives.
The reason Birthers get no respect is they are singularly minded.
This isn’t about me. It’s whether or not we still have any allegiance to this:
“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 to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
“We the People of the United States, in Order to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...”
“You shall not murder.”
Nothing is going to change as long as we keep acting like those things are optional.
Yeah, well, we do. So give it a rest.
What exactly is “single issue” about the principles of the Declaration, the stated purposes of the Constitution, the explicit, imperative requirements of that document, and the oath to support and defend it?
Jim, all I want is Article 2 Section 1 upheld this time. We all no it wasn’t the past two election cycles because of the dual citizen that was given a pass.
I say it that way because I do not believe that Cruz has ever afforded himself of any of that privilege.
He is a Red Blooded American.
Cruz is a natural born citizen. Get over it.
Meant to say ‘We all ‘know’.
It's certainly NO confirmation of Constitutional eligibility.
Upon these things the continued existence of this free republic, and the survival in liberty of my children and grandchildren, absolutely depend. Therefore, I will never “give it a rest,” while I’m still drawing breath. Not for you, or Ted Cruz, or anyone else.
“These communities [the Fathers of the Republic], by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’
“This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to his creatures.
“Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children’s children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.
“Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, or none but Anglo-Saxon white men, were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began, so that truth and justice and mercy and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.
“Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me — take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever — but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles. You may not only defeat me for the Senate, but you may take me and put me to death. While pretending no indifference to earthly honors, I do claim to be actuated in this contest by something higher than an anxiety for office. I charge you to drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man’s success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity — the Declaration of American Independence.”
— Abraham Lincoln, speech in Lewiston, Illinois, August 17, 1858, four days before his first historic debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Printed in the Chicago Press and Tribune.
I think you do not fairly represent the strategy of the fetal pain legislation.
Don’t spam me bro.
Whenever Conservatives make a stand on a particular issue (gun-control, immigration, etc...) we are accused by moderates of being "single issue voters" .
Look, Tom You want to hold Teds Feet to the fire over abortion, and give him ultimatums, when the man is pro life.
Show the man some respect.
He can’t do anything at the Federal level without 2/3rds of the House and Senate.
We got the guy in the door.
Let him work.
The USCIS has already proven that false. "Natural born citizen" and "citizen at birth" are NOT the same.
Details here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3059469/posts?q=1&;page=179#174
There is a difference, and it's a notable difference. Cruz's mother fulfilled the residency requirement as the law requires. Obama's mom did not necessarily do so. Therefore, the birth certificate became an issue.
It was NEVER about some odd interpretation of the term, "natural born citizen." It was about fulfilling the requirement to be ANY kind of natural born citizen, whether by blood or by place of birth.
Labels are easy. Policies that comport with the principles and purposes of the founding, and the most important explicit, imperative requirements of the Constitution require a bit more than sloganeering.
So those of us who support the grassroots tea party conservative and probably strongest conservative in the senate if not the entire Republican party are now considered to be moderates by birthers? Don’t look now, but I’m beginning to think the people who say birthers are nutcases aren’t that far off base. You people are imploding. Best rethink your strategy.
I am sure you are right. But then, Barry never took advantage of the "privilege" of his Indonesian citizenship either. So he must be good to go too.
Never mind. Expediency and hypocrisy shall rule the day.
Jim,
Could you please define “destroy his chances” and exactly which criticisms won’t be tolerated?
And did I correctly understand that these prohibitions will be effective at the time of his announcement, and not on receiving the party’s nomination?
I’m a strong believer in almost everything that Senator Cruz claims to represent, but I intend to support the strongest conservative candidate available, and I’m not yet convinced that Senator Cruz will be that candidate.
Only when you vote on the weaker single issue guy and not the stronger candidate that holds the same values but does not dance to your tune.
I fully expect Ted Cruz will not be all things to all people, but by God! I like the way this fellow carry’s himself.
Ted has enough on his hands without us snarking at him, but snark away.
This guy does not get rattled.
He did not get to Pohkystan on a US Passport.
“Nope. “natural born citizen” = “citizen at birth”.”
“born citizen” = “citizen at birth”
If the citizen at birth / born citizen was the qualification what function does the word “natural” have.
Do you speak English as a first language?
Can you not read the words.
Not according the Supreme Court of the United States.
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.