Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
And I will note here: I LIKE CRUZ. I HOPE HE IS ELIGIBLE. If SCOTUS is going to say he’s not, though, I would want them to do it while we still have time to nominate Sarah Palin instead (or somebody else).
***That’s about where I see things as well. It’s funny how the whole agreed NBC definition on FR seems to be morphing because some conservative might run for presidency. This whole whittling away at the plain meaning of the constitutional term is purely Obama’s fault.
One should never argue with Jim Thompson.
Bad, bad idea.
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
Posted on Tue 09 Dec 2008 09:59:02 AM PST by Kevmo
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Does that sound agreeable to everybody?
***Not to me. We learned a lot when we hashed out the requirements for eligibility 5 years ago. It is germane to this discussion.
All I want is The SCOTUS to take one of the many very worthy appeals that have wended their weary way to their office and TELL ME what a Natural Born Citizen is. That’s their job, ne ç’est pas? Instead these blackrobed bumkissers have picked up their pay for 6 years now while dodging this unpleasant bullet under the lamest set of excuses ever seen in the history of the court. Now that, that I am not inventing. A couple of them have admitted it in public.
***Do you have a reference for this? I have heard it as a rumor but have never seen it attributed.
Amen to that, my FRiend. :)
That is moot now that the electorate has lowered the bar to “whomever we elect” (post facto eligibility). Until and unless Obamugabe is impeached and removed on ineligiblity rules, Cruz is, most certainly, eligible...in an electoral manner.
***The 20th amendment states “if a pres elect fails to qualify”, so it is inherent in the statement that a president has qualified, was eligible. That was the job of the SCOTUS and they sat on their hands in the manner you describe. It was SCOTUS who failed us.
WW, we have no continuing debate/argument regarding Cruz. We agree that he is eligible according to the electoral process and precedence previously provided.
***That precedence was provided by Obama. He whittled away at the constitution and got away with it, so now there will be others trying to drive trucks through the loophole he created.
Oh, certainly I want people to keep hashing things out. I just didn’t want to make this thread all about Obama. It’s about the definition of “natural born citizen”.
I do hope, though, that rather than clawing at each other because we infer different things from all the various sources of information pertaining to the issue, we can all agree that since the judiciary will eventually have to resolve the questions anyway when Hillary files suit claiming Cruz ineligible, the judiciary needs to clearly state the ground rules BEFORE the game starts, not keep telling us the rules are none of our business even while we have to carry out the essential functions of campaigning, contributing, strategizing, and voting while being kept deliberately blind to the rules our efforts could ultimately be disqualified by.
We can disagree all we want on how the judiciary should end up deciding, but I hope we can all agree that it is essential that the judiciary NOT be left with the option of deciding the rules when most of the game is already over.
Yes, no, WTF?
***Looks like just crickets, one of the cases you neglected to mention.
Yes, SCOTUS failed us. But they used the excuse of lower courts saying it was nobody’s business - that nobody had standing. That means that when somebody with standing DOES appear they can come in and make whatever decision they want. They were very deliberate about NOT setting a *legal* precedent. They’ll say Obama got away with it because nobody who had standing challenged his eligibility (because Chelsea Clinton was threatened, according to sources close to the Clintons - and I suspect McCain was as well, and we know Palin was gagged by McCain). But nobody will keep Hillary from challenging the eligibility of Ted Cruz. The whole system hates him because he is antiseptic to their rotting, putrescent corpses. So when he is challenged the courts will be all too happy to say that Hillary has standing, and they will give her the decision that gets rid of Cruz.
By refusing to make a *legal* ruling, there is no legal precedent, so they still have this nuclear option available. Unless we force them to give a legal ruling on the definition of NBC BEFORE the 2012 primary.
The maiden name of the mother of the child of the kenyan student must appear in the UNREDACTED INS file that Sally Jacobs had for two years...before her book was published. That maiden name must also appear in the 'adoption memo' in which all we can see is 'Miss Dun....' (or Dan)
That name on the memo wasn't truncated for no reason.
You are quite correct. There's no way of knowing who the mother of the child named Barack Hussein Obama 11 was, or when he was born. He was named after his father by a woman who believed her child was HIS FIRST SON. If that child was born in Hawaii as it seems he was, her maiden name would also appear on his BC...and that's the son he wrote home about, according to Zietuni, who was a girl living in the village in Kenya when that letter arrived.
And in 1964, when the kenyan student returned to Kenya, he took that child back to Kenya with him. And that leaves zero as totally unidentified.
However, not even Cruz is claiming that he is necessarily a Natural Born Citizen, a constitutional qualification he would need in order to be eligible for the presidency or vice presidency of the United States. He said he is "going to leave it to others to decide."
Let's not conflate the term "citizen at birth" with "Natural Born Citizen." The first is a statutory term, or derived from statutory law; the latter is a constitutional term which had a different definition when placed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.
"Natural Born Citizen," as understood by the writers of the Constitution, is a person born in a particular nation, both of whose parents were citizens of that nation at the time of that birth. Natural Born Citizens are also citizens at birth, but Natural Born Citizens are only a subset of citizens at birth.
Ted Cruz is a very good Senator and a principled man. But unfortunately he is not a Natural Born Citizen, having been born in Canada, and accordingly, is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency or vice-presidency, barring a constitutional amendment changing the qualifications for those offices.
At least one of the lawsuits was from an independent candidate for president. If he didn’t have standing, no one had standing.
It was an enforcement loophole that Obama squeezed tightly through, by keeping all of his records sealed. Now there are others who seek to jump through the same enforcement loophole. Soon enough we’ll have guys like the Guvernator who obviously don’t qualify but they’ll “leave it up to the court to decide”. By then, the eligibility requirement is so watered down that it’s meaningless.
Same thing. No magical other definitions exist in the minds of 99% of people. I say again, this junk hasn't gotten rid of Obama so using it against Cruz is like stabbing yourself in the eye for no reason. It's time to let it go my friend.
I hope we can all agree that it is essential that the judiciary NOT be left with the option of deciding the rules when most of the game is already over.
***I had a similar hope 5 years ago that the SCOTUS would find someone who was clearly a usurper, a forgerer, a liar, and even by his own claim to not have 2 US citizens as parents, to be ineligible. But that wasn’t the case. I consider the court’s treatment of Berg vs. Obama to be the dividing line of when we as a country became an empire rather than a republic.
At the time my tagline was
So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09
I considered this a constitutional issue then, and I consider it one now. But since Obama & the Supremes already trampled on the constitution, we might as well install a conservative as POTUS.
The birth fact patterns are not the same. Obama had one citizen parent (mother) and claims to have born on US soil. Just being born on US soil is enough to confer citizenship at birth, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
Cruz had one citizen parent (also mother) but was not born in the US. His claim to natural born citizen status stands on a different foundation from "born on US soil."
Just saying that a rule can be formulated that includes one, but not the other. Not saying that the rule does so, just saying that the two cases aren't similar so that if one makes it, the other automatically does. Cruz's claim is based on having one citizen parent, and that being sufficient, without more.
There is absolutely nothing that substantiates the claims that zero's father was the kenyan student or that his mother was Stanley Ann Dunham. You do not know who his mother and father were, you do not know when he was born, you do not know where he was born. And until you do know, any discussion about his citizenship status would appear to me totally meaningless. IMO.
I don’t think Cruz wants to get through a loophole. As Justiceseeker93 noted, Cruz hasn’t called himself a natural born citizen. He’s said he is a US citizen by birth and he’ll let others sort out the ramifications of that. The question that’s been debated is whether “citizen at birth” is the same thing as “natural born citizen”. There’s been no ruling on that, as is acknowledged by the Department of State guidelines on citizenship that I linked to earlier on this thread. And I hear Cruz saying he will abide by whatever the legal decision is regarding what roles he can and can’t have. God knows he is dynamite where he’s at right now! Nothing is going to stop him from fighting the good fight, wherever he’s given a platform.
What we need is to FORCE the courts to make a ruling that is legally binding, before the trap is laid for Cruz to be our candidate and then SCOTUS gets Hillary with standing and gives the ruling they never would give against Obama.
The Constitution says that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in all cases in which a State is a party. If a State passes a law enforcing the Vattel definition of NBC and somebody (DOJ, Ted Cruz, a class action group seeking an injunction while constitutionality is being decided or whoever) challenges its constitutionality, SCOTUS has jurisdiction.
We’re tired. We’re disgusted. We’re demoralized and feeling that we’ve got no means to turn this country around. I am so there. We all are. But it’s worth fighting for. We all believe in the rule of law even if we don’t agree on the definition of NBC, and it’s time for us to demand that our judiciary give the rule of law a fighting chance by acknowledging that as long as we have skin in the game it ***IS**** our business to know the rules our efforts will be judged - and potentially disqualified - by.
Where in the law is that stated?
Do you also seek a ruling on the legal meaning of the word “is”?
NO ONE cares about these fringe legal theories.
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.