Skip to comments.Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]
Posted on 10/28/2013 7:19:34 AM PDT by Paul46360
click here to read article
“Its the only definition of NBC we have. “
You have the Webster’s Dictionary. It is no harder than that. Look up the word ‘natural’. Vattel is not the law of the US and never was.
Nonsense. All ya need is a CRBA. Magic, you become a citizen from a fling.
There is more to it than that.
In that case Chester Arthur didn’t make the cut either (father wasn’t a citizen at the time of his birth)
A “natural born citizen” is automatically an “American citizen at birth”, but an “American citizen at birth” is not automatically a “natural born citizen.”
The bar - “natural born citizen” - was set higher than “citizen at birth”, set by our Constitution, and the distinction is simply:
*having in both roots, proven loyalty to the USA at birth.*
That proven loyalty is conveyed by having loyal American citizen parents (plural - father is male and mother is female), which includes their determination to make a home here in U.S. territory.
The existence of the words within our Constitution, was to emphasize that loyalty. That was the first reason for including the words.
I find it very disturbing that I am that much older then Ted Cruz.
Webster’s Dictionary was first published in 1825, so would not have been of use to the Founders. Samuel Johnson published the first English language dictionary in 1750, but it was British. Yes, Cawdrey had his earlier Table Alphabeticall, but it was a listing of words without definitions.
George Romney, father of Mittens, was born AND lived in Mexico, he was a Mexican citizen. Juan McAmesty was born in the Canal Zone.
Lastly, the Kenyan kid’s kid father was born in Kenya, with a 99% certainty that’s where the human teleprompter was born,
inspite of all-knowing-one Bill O’Reilly being “absolutely certain” the Kenyan was born in Hawaii, and all “birthers” are extreme right-wing fanatics that hate the Kenyan and will not believe anything good about him.
Don’t care. You point wasn’t even an issue. What does Webster say the word ‘natural’ means? It hasn’t changed. Are you a computer programmer by chance? I mean, it takes that level of nerdom to have no reading comprehension and no social skills as to offer facts not even important to the discussion.
I believe Cruz is, I believe Obama is but is one of the corner cases.
But Arnold is not, Arnold is the epitome of *not* a natural born citizen.
Your two posts today have been removed because the link you included in them both set off very loud Trojan horse virus alerts. Please do not post any links to that site again. Thank you.
The age limit only applied to children who were not born in the US. Obama and the state of Hawaii say he was born there.
That’s a lovely theory but it has no basis in law.
Benedict Arnold was a natural born citizen, as are traitors Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames, Soviet double agent spies against America.
There are only two types of Americans citizens: citizens of the United States at Birth and Naturalized United States citizens. The first category can be president, the second category cannot be president.
It’s really that simple.
Tisdale v Obama, U.S. District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiffs assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
You need to knock it off. I said no such thing.
What I said is that we conservatives ought to be able to discuss any subject amongst ourselves, no matter how contentious. It's what we've been doing here since this place opened.
For the second time -- I voted for Ted Cruz.. Twice. He's my Senator, and I couldn't be more pleased with what he's done since he went to Washington. If he chooses to run for President in 2016, he's got my vote because he's exactly the sort of American the Framers were trying to restrict the office of President to.
With that out of the way, let me say that I vehemently disagree with the nazi-like idea that any person should be zotted for simply discussing the issue of his eligibility. Shutting down free communication is what the left does. I hope to God we never start acting like them.
I sure would prefer it if his birth circumstance fit that profile, but it is what it is. There are going to be questions and all sorts of discussion over it - regardless of the fact that Obama's bona fides have never been proved.
Dems are so hypocritical that they won't think twice to attack Ted over his citizenship.
When it comes right down to it, the Framers knew they had to come up with some sort of basic litmus test for Presidents. Their loyalty to the nation, the Constitution, our way of life, and the American people is supposed to be beyond question. It's what the NBC clause is supposed to screen for, but there's no way to predict whether a natural born citizen of this country will truly be as loyal as the office requires. Frankly, they did the very best they could, and left the rest to future generations.
In the case of Ted Cruz, I have no doubt he's precisely the sort of American the Framers intended to hold the office.
“Then once and for all we can determine that everything done at the Federal level for the past five years has been illegal. “
Favorable to impeachment. PROVE HIS INELIGIBILITY. It is the ONLY way to legally discard EVERYTHING that Obama’s done.
(AND...re: Cruz...if he’s FOR any kind of amnesty for any illegal aliens...he is NOT getting my vote, period.)
“And possibly his adoption by an Indonesian citizen residing in Indonesia.”
And that adoption quite possibly resulted in Barry’s parents renouncing his U.S. citizenship in favor of Indonesian citizenship. It may be the very reason why he has hidden his Columbia University records.
You have GOT to be kidding.
The man was a genuine "progressive", wanted government run health care, thought the Michael Moore theory of Cuba having the best health care was ACTUALLY TRUE, hated free enterprise, wanted the government to run business, plus he was a social liberal.
Other than that, maybe he belonged on this site.........
People need to stop and think about what the Framers were trying to accomplish with the NBC clause.
They were attempting to screen out and disallow any person with divided loyalties from assuming the office of President. The simplest way to do that, was to restrict the office to those citizens who were naturally attached to the country through the circumstance of their birth. It makes perfect sense that such people's first allegiance would be to our country, and to our people.
I said earlier that it would have been a stroke of genius for the Framers to attach an addendum to the Constitution which explained their reasoning for every Article, Section, and Clause. That act could have saved our country centuries of argument over the Constitution's true meaning, and would probably even have prevented the country from drifting so far from our founding principles.
Unfortunately, they assumed that the plain language of the day was sufficient for any person to grasp what sort of government they'd created. In hindsight, we see that it is not.
In the case of the eligibility requirements for the office of President, what's paramount is the individual's loyalty to our country and the Constitution. If that question can be answered in the affirmative for someone seeking the office, then the Framers' intent is satisfied. I believe that's the case with Ted Cruz, who I have no doubt, the Framers would unanimously approve of.
Yeah, but he was interesting. And boy could he spin up people incapable of articulating or defending their positions. Fun to watch.
I enjoyed messing up his own peculiar (aka "progressive") ideas while posting with him, for some reason he actually told me what he believed; he didn't like so much to have the tables turned on him, but was a good sport about it.
As I remember, he self banned, meaning he got sick of the "natural born" threads about Obama. I think he could still come back and post, I don't think he was ever zotted by JR.
McCain’s father was in Panama serving in his country’s service. That’s another difference.
It WAS surprising to me that he would openly post back and forth to me about so many issues as a progressive (aka totalitarian leftist), and that he was zotted only after he asked for it.
Interesting guy. I do admit to poking a lot of fun at his true beliefs, I think I was a kind of Parsifal to him in return. Like I said, with me at least, he was a good sport, he handled my mostly on target missiles with self deprecating humor.
But he’s a freshman senator, with little or no experience in government...oh, yeah.
I think he’s had some real jobs
If he wasn’t a U.S. Citizen he could not have attended the Punahou School in Honolulu from 5th grade through 12th, Occidental College, Columbia or Harvard Law without having and then renewing F-1 (foreign student) student visas.
Go Cruz Go!
He’s make a GRATE President!
It is just my personal opinion, but I believe that natural born citizenship is derived when both parents are citizens at the time of birth. Not wanting to start any war here, but because of that understanding, I do not believe that Ted Cruz is eligible to be president.
On the other hand, I also believe that Barack Obama was not constitutionally qualified to be president. If I belief that Obama was not qualified, I can not then declare Cruz to be qualified and be intellectually honest.
Now, if the Supreme Court were to decide that constitutional question, one way or another, then I would be satisfied. Or if congress were to draft laws determining what constitutes a natural born citizen, then I again, would be satisfied.
Once again, I say this is my personal opinion based upon my simple reading of the constitution. If other parties disagree, so be it.
“His fathers Kenyan birth should have disqualified him.”
Quite so. And the fact of the natural born citizen standard having been waived for Obama has rendered it a moot point henceforth, forevermore.
<...”Dems are so hypocritical that they won’t think twice to attack Ted over his citizenship”...>
And the media will gladly give them that opportunity and push the issue.
Obama sets president. Any foreigner can be PIC
BINGO! Wouldn’t you also love to know why Congress tried to change the meaning of NBC eight (8) times before Obozo ran for POTUS? Yeah, me too.
OK. I don’t know about Trojan horse viruses.
Could I just post the text from it? I have permission from the author, who is a friend. Text can’t have anything in it.
What’s that? Like, a news anchorman;-?
The Supreme Court did already decide how to define Natural-born Citizen in Minor v. Happersett. That definition was affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and the Minor precedent on presidential eligibility was affirmed in Luria v. United States. IOW, 27 Supreme Court justices agreed with Minor that NBC is defined as all children born in the country to citizen parents. Those born outside the country and born to an alien father can only become citizens through the naturalization authority of Congress.
And that edge919, is my understanding too, thus because of those decisions, unfortunately, Ted Cruz can not be considered a “natural born” citizen. He is a citizen, just not natural born.
Yes, Yes, YES!
That horse has left the barn. Although Obama may someday be impeached, his so-called legitimacy as president will never be seriously challenged by any succeeding administration. Therefore, precedent exists for a president with at least one parent who is a foreign national. McCain was also waived in, though he was born outside the country. Cruz should not face any serious opposition if he chooses to run for POTUS.
No, I’m a lexicographer. Also a cruciverbalist.
No one cares about this NBC thing. It’s a non issue.
The issue is who would make the best person to be President and turn this country around, and Ted Cruz has made a very good start there.
This reminds me of the circle of posts relating to McCain being a better candidate than GW.
However, that wasn’t the real target. The real target was the game they played with all of us.
A group would gang up - starting with one person entering the thread and saying something nasty about GW. After we would sufficiently pile on, suddenly another person would chime in and join with the opinion of the first person. That, of course, would bring more and more of us to the thread .. but, as I was reading all the posts, I suddenly discovered that the original two people who supported McCain - had disappeared from the thread. Hmmmmm ..??
That’s when I discovered the GAME. It wasn’t to defend McCain, the goal was to watch all of us go ballistic, while they just sat back and laughed at all our posts supporting GW.
I ended this game by sending private msgs to all the posters, telling them what was going on. Plus, I kept a list of the trouble makers; whenever I would see them on a thread, I would let the other posters know what they were up against .. privately .. and suddenly, the thread was dead.
HOW TO WIN THE GAME: REFUSE TO PLAY!!!
We must understand that Ted Cruz is hated .. because he’s a minority and he’s not grateful to the dems. He’s a self-made man, with the help of a great set of parents. The CATO Institute has investigated and found Cruz to be an American Citizen .. END OF CONVERSATION!!!!!
Yes, I remember that well. We forget these people are ALL politicians and even the best of them will never give us 100% of what we want. We are too eager to let the smallest speck of a fault disqualify good people to serve.
“It makes perfect sense that such people’s first allegiance would be to our country, and to our people.”
It might seem to, but that doesn’t explain the millions of liberals that seek this nation’s demise including the very president seated. However, the founders knew there would be people that sought to take over the government, to enslave, and to abuse it. They even remarked a revolution once a generation might be necessary to secure freedom.
I’m not the expert on statutory law of Congress defining citizenship. There are several here. SoConPubbie is one and there are others.
You two are simply wrong.
Defined by statute does not at all mean that someone is “naturalized”. Defined by statute - unless that statute is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - defines when one is considered a citizen AT THEIR BIRTH. When you are a citizen AT YOUR BIRTH, YOU ARE NOT A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.
Naturalized has a very specific meaning. It means that you must go through a naturalization process under the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to become a citizen because you never were a citizen and can’t be until you are processed to become one. That would be a true case of someone who is not natural born but instead is naturalized. That person can’t legally run for President, according to the Constitution.
You are trying to say that if Congress defined NBC by statute, that is the same as providing naturalization for those who fall under that statute. No, it isn’t. It is defining WHO WAS A CITIZEN AT THEIR BIRTH.
As Jim Rob posted on this thread, and has posted many times before, Ted Cruz falls under a statute that defined natural born as having been born to a U.S. citizen parent (his mother is a U.S. citizen and was only working temporarily in Canada (she was born and raised in Delaware and came back here to live in Houston - still lives there) and does not have to have been born on U.S. soil nor did his father’s status deprive Ted of U.S. citizenship through his mother.
No court ruling has ever overturned the statute that defined Ted Cruz as a U.S. citizen.
And are you not aware that the Constitution ITSELF gave Congress the authority to define citizenship? Well, it does!
To come on here, after all of this has been hashed and rehashed for many months, and settled, and to think you are somehow successfully contradicting what the rest of us have posted about this, is not going to work.
I’m not going to let it go by.
The Framers were wise. They knew we'd eventually reach this point, hence their remark. I'm sure they'd be aghast that we've endured this extent of abuse without revolting.