Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[txrangerette]

Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.

"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: I see you have started the same crap that various losers used to slime Sarah supporters as well. ::

IIRC, CodeToad and Wideawake are the ones using ad hominem attacks against me. Please show me my error.

Actually, I (Cletus) have showed agreement with CT and WAwake’s arguments as to “modern” eligibility. There is no “proving me wrong” on this difference of opinon. Cruz is eligible (provided the SCOTUS does not remove him from office on eligibility impeachment)

Where did Sarah Palin come into play? How long have you playing right field for Cleveburg? (Disclosure: I would support a SP primary over a Cruz primary.)

[plain talk]

Never said it was not a legitimate question. But thus far there is not even one congressman interested in the issue. No one cares except a fringe and even they don’t agree on the definition. In the meantime the real world moves on. Cruz 2016

[SoConPubbie]

Where did Sarah Palin come into play? How long have you playing right field for Cleveburg? (Disclosure: I would support a SP primary over a Cruz primary.)

Read GBA's response to you again.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I welcome continued “intelligent” discussion on the issue. Emotion? well, not so much.

I agree, for some reason though it is now not allowed on FR, lest you be labeled a troll.

I like Cruz A LOT too! I am behind him 100% and wish all in Congress shared his love for the Constitution and America as he does.

My dilemma, I believe after studying the issue here since 2008 and railing against obmmies eligibility, NBC = 2 Citizen parents born on US soil.

I'm finding it very difficult to change position for expediency and for that, I will now be a troll a traitor and undermining Cruz.

I guess I'll just stay off of these threads from now on.

[SoConPubbie]

IIRC, CodeToad and Wideawake are the ones using ad hominem attacks against me. Please show me my error.

Actually, I (Cletus) have showed agreement with CT and WAwake’s arguments as to “modern” eligibility. There is no “proving me wrong” on this difference of opinon. Cruz is eligible (provided the SCOTUS does not remove him from office on eligibility impeachment)

You have as yet to answer, honestly, the posts by wideawake and codetoad at posts #95, #119, and #131. Instead, you bluster on about nothing important to this discussion instead of proving their contentions that you apparently have not read "Minor v. Happersett" since it does not support the conclusions you have arrived out concerning "Natural Born" citizens.

[Las Vegas Ron]

But thus far there is not even one congressman interested in the issue.

Well I can't disagree with that, but that still doesn't make it right in my book.

Babies are murdered in the womb every day, Congress doesn't say a peep, but I will still keep fighting against it.

[SoConPubbie]

I'm finding it very difficult to change position for expediency and for that, I will now be a troll a traitor and undermining Cruz.

This isn't about expediency, it is about the FACT that there is no legal definition/law in the Constitution, U.S. Law, or the rulings of the Supreme Court for a definition of "Natural Born" citizen that requires both parents to be US Citizens at the time of birth.

Just because SOME of the founders may have believed that it required 2 US Citizens, or some outside legal authority believed it required 2 US Citizens does not provide the necessary legal framework/foundation/definition to support your contention.

It is only your opinion, and those who agree with you. It is not law.

[Las Vegas Ron]

It is only your opinion, and those who agree with you. It is not law.

Works both ways, no?

[Venturer]

Perhaps, show me why.

[wideawake]

Hey...it works for you.

It doesn't matter if it "works" or does not "work" for me or for you.

You are misrepresenting the court's ruling in Minor.

The court did not say what you claim.

[Venturer]

Show me the scrutiny.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

It is not up to me to prove the accused negative.

When did you stop beating your wife?

[noinfringers2]

I have printed out your reference to U.S.C. 1401 and filed it with my other copies of such. I first refer you to the Constitution which in Article I speaks only to ‘citizen’ and then to Article II which speaks to ‘natural born citizen’ for POTUSA. Obviously the Founders declared a difference to exist. I now refer you to your copy of U.S.C.1401. At the very beginning statement it speaks only to ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’. There is no mention whatsoever of ‘natural born citizens’ being covered as it does for ‘citizens’. As such it is a reasonable conclusion that U.S.C. 1401 was not intended to deal with ‘natural born citizen’. Your strident comments do not make your case as I read the Constitution and U.S.C.1401.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

OK. It appears that GBA agrees that Cruz is eligible because Obamugabe was elected. Where did I say different?

You introduced the “right field” non-sequitor of Sarah Palin.

[SoConPubbie]

It is not up to me to prove the accused negative.

When did you stop beating your wife?

You are running away from a fight you cannot win because the "evidence" you are using to support your contention does not support your contention.

I too have read the ruling in contention, and both wideawake and codetoad are correct in what they have posted to you.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: You are misrepresenting the court’s ruling in Minor. ::

To my reading, the courts decision in M v. H, supports an originalist understanding of the Constitution.

If, we come to an agreement that a 1783 understanding does not agree with a 2013 understanding of the plain language, then (i) let the court say so - which they did not in M v.H or (ii) let us force this change upon the people’s understanding and...simply...move on.

I live in the concept of today but ever learning from history. The people are vested in either preserving or re-defining history.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Hey...it works for you.

[CodeToad]

Seriously? You’re going to parse ‘citizen’ vs ‘natural born citizen’ as to mean there are two sets of laws for two different kinds of citizens? Are you really that desperate to vilify Cruz?

1401 deal directly with who I and who is not a natural born citizen. It was made for dummies that can’t seem to understand the difference otherwise. There are loads of laws made to clarify and codify the writing of the Constitution and 1401 is one of them.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I live in the concept of today but ever learning from history. The people are vested in either preserving or re-defining history.

Bump!

[BuckeyeTexan]

See my post at #154. When Red pointed me to Rogers v. Bellei, I read it probably 30 times, consulted well-respected attorneys who I personally know and a couple of federal court judges in Dallas about that case. At first, I felt like a hypocrite for changing my position on statutory citizenship after all of these years.

But now I am comfortable with my decision and the logic I followed to get there. Maybe my post will help you. Maybe it won't. But you're not a troll. You may get zotted if you argue too loudly and publicly against Cruz's eligibility on FR, but you are not a troll. I know your position is an honest one, founded on well-researched documention.

You're one of my favorite "jerks" with whom to debate. I hope you stick around.