Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paul46360

A person can be either a) a naturalized citizen or b) a citizen at birth who does not require naturalization. There is no in-between. Cruz is the latter.

This thread link is posted on the forum page; you might have missed it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3060736/posts


43 posted on 10/28/2013 7:55:06 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CatherineofAragon

The controversy centers at/in the Constitution which/where specifically by 1st and 2nd Articles there is a specific delineation in wording between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’. For years politicians have used obfuscation to circumvent the difference in wording. The first successful one I know of was when Arthur who had a questionable US birthright succeeded McKinley who was assassinated. The second successful one I know of is Obama who had his path cleared by Pelosi vouching for Obama’s qualifications for POTUSA. It is my understanding that Obama was sired by a SE Asian guru named Muhammed Subuh with a young filly not yet 18 years of age named Stanley Ann Dunham. I don’t believe that eligibility for POTUSA is as Constitutionally as simple as just an either or situation as many others take the matter.


280 posted on 02/02/2015 1:44:30 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson