Skip to comments.Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada
Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
click here to read article
The difference is that in Zero’s myth, he was quote unquote “born” on US soil. Of course that’s the myth, but that would make him less non-eligible or some crap.
But it is Congress’ primary responsibility to vet these things when certifying the election.
***Based upon rulings from the judiciary branch. There wasn’t a single ruling for them to hang their hats on to form the objection.
Someone like Nancy couldnt sign off on the Austrian being eligible, could she now?
***She could, and here’s how: An ineligible libtard communist gets to the pres-elect position, the SCOTUS hasn’t allowed a single court ruling to stand due to lack of “standing”, and therefore he “qualifies” to become president. Then an ineligible good-guy conservative gets to the pres-elect position, the SCOTUS hasn’t allowed a single court ruling to stand due to lack of “standing”, and therefore he “qualifies” to become president. Then an ineligible RINO born in Austria gets to the pres-elect position, the SCOTUS hasn’t allowed a single court ruling to stand due to lack of “standing”, and therefore he “qualifies” to become president.
Good point. That might mean that Cruz needs to blow his wad this cycle, or else the left could be envigorated to challenge his eligibility in 2020 or later, since there wouldn’t be a sitting eligibility nightmare president to jeopardize.
It’s not like we all went back to Chester Arthur’s presidency and nullified every law he passed.
Congress does not have lifetime employment. SCOTUS does. That bargain was so that SCOTUS wouldn’t feel the heat of the political decisions they made. SCOTUS broke the social contract; Congress didn’t necessarily break it — they did what you’d expect politicians with their fingers in the air to do.
If they refuse, somebody needs to give em hell.
Retired General: Some in Military Want to ‘Take Out the President’
Fri 01 Nov 2013 02:14:13 PM PDT · by don-o · 110 replies
National Journal ^ | November 1, 2013 | Alex Seitz-Wald
A former top general and current executive at the Family Research Council says members of the military have considered staging a coup d’état against President, but will not because of civilian control of the military. “People I’ve spoken to would like to see the military ‘fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,’ “ retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin told World Net Daily, a website best known for pushing Obama “birther” conspiracy theories. “Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You’re not going to see...
And my dearly departed Austrian mother would have been overjoyed at the result; hail President Schwarzenegger!
(Which name I think translates to black nigger, btw.)
Cruz is stirring the pot to get them to slip up on hussein's NBC. Cruz knows better than to cause a distraction and split the GOP so he will not attempt a run causing a Constitution fiasco.
Bottom line, the left would have to be insanely suicidal to go up against Cruz's eligibility with the illegal they have supported for a decade.It just won't happen.They know not to open Pandoras's box.
They also know that the only deciding fact would be DNA from zero to prove he is an obama. And that ain't gonna happen.
Even when zero is gone its not likely they want to destroy all the communism he brought to the party and the country and any outside chance for the big mooch,val/jar or the rest of the chicago mobsters.
“Schwarzenegger [...] (Which name I think translates to black nigger, btw.)”
This misinterpretation of the meaning of Governator Ah-nald’s name is commonly made by English speakers with a just enough knowledge of German to get into linguistic deep do-do, PC-wise. :)
Several theories exist about the etymology of Arnold’s surname, but before I go there, first note that in German, his surname linguistically breaks down to Schwarzen-Egger. The position of the glottal stop makes it completely impossible for the “n” to belong to the back half of the compound word.
If his ancestors had hailed from northern Germany, “Egger” could possibly be a dialectal version of Acker, which loosely means field or acre(s) in a farming sense. Thus a similar English name might have started as “John of Blackacres” (referring to fertile land or just black soil). However, this usage apparently was unique to Prussia and the German north lands (and, of course, Arnold is Austrian).
“Egge,” meaning “harrow” (a plow-like farm tool used to break up the soil), also could be the name root, so Arnold’s ancestors might have been “black harrowers” (either referring to the type or color of the tool or the dirty appearance of the people - sort of like black coalminers). But, unlike Baker, Smith or Farmer (Bauer in German), harrowing was not a profession, being commonly done by all farmers, but only briefly on a seasonal basis. So this occupational name origin also is not very likely.
I lived for a time in Switzerland. “Egg” is common to place names there (I vaguely recall that there even is a Swiss village of Schwarzenegg). The farm dialects in Bavaria and Austria, though not as extreme, are similar to Swiss. I was told that Egg means Eck[e] - corner (or edge in a geographical sense), so Schwarzenegger could be one who comes from “black corner” as in coming from a village on the edge of a “black forest” or nestled up against a black soil ridge or dark cliffs on the edge of the Alps.
Anyway, this geographical name origin seems the most likely to me, that is, Schwarzenegger is just one who hails from the town or dominion of Schwarzenegg.
Thank you. That was very interesting and enlightening.
The definition for Natural born has been given a number of times in the Congressional records as well as being used a number of times in the U.S. Supreme Court. Information I submit from the Congressional Records and the Supreme court is not my opinion.
My definition is supported by Congressional records and the U.S. Supreme court . Where are you getting your “definitions” from?
Congressmen have read their favorite novels into The Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is meaningless in this discussion.
The Supreme Court has never given a precise definition, hence the debate.
For starters, the Supreme Court has NO authority, get that, NONE, over the matter of eligiblitiy for President.
ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY!
Chew on that one for a bit. Then maybe I will get back to you on the rest of your nonsense.
The congressional records and the Supreme court has clarified on a number of occasions as to the original intent of the founding fathers. The Supreme Court of course does not set eligibility for the President, but it has the authority to determine the original intent of the founding fathers. The original intent was for the President to be born of American Citizens to protect the nation from foreign influence of an non- citizen parent.
You have absolutely no authority on your side.
You do not understand law.
You do not understand history.
You do not understand logic.
You do not understand the English language.
There are only two types of Citizen in the United States:
Natural Born or
Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen and the Courts will NEVER even take a case that claims otherwise, as the Courts know they have know authority over the matter.
Our Nation was founded on the principle that citizenship was derived from parents that owed their allegiance to the United States. A person born with full and complete allegiance( both parents U.S. citizens) was considered “natural born”. Any person born with less than full allegiance was a citizen by code and considered a naturalized citizen( even if born on American soil. I find it interesting that you appear to have no knowledge of the Constitution and it’s original intent.
Your position is false, your position is laughable, and your position is actually that of a FLAMING LIBERAL! Only a Liberal would want to give that much authority to the Courts. In fact, the first “birthers” were Hillary Clinton supporters in the Democrat Primary.
Empty assertions from a known obot.
Grow up. Be a man. Face the fact that the vast majority of Conservatives think that Cruz is 100% eligible to be President.
Face the fact that you are wrong. You have FAILED to convince anyone that you are correct. The law is ALL about “legal opinion” and your opinion is in the slim minority.
1. My posts are SOLELY in regard to eligibility and IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH ANY INDIVIDUAL.
DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH.
2. You are a known Obama supporter. In my OPINION your opinion and motivations on the subject of “eligibility” is suspect.
3. You did not refute “alpha 76” but instead launched a fusillade of unsubstantiated personal criticism of the poster. For example, “lunatic fringe”, and “NO legal training”. I do not know “alpha 76” and the posting history is short. Please enlighten us, on what do you base your allegations?
Ping to post 1025. Apologies for omitting you.
THIS IDIOT called me an “obot”
I WANT HIM BANWED FROM FREE REPUBLIC
And if you won't do that much? At least warn him to not make such comments again, about me!
Cruz rules. Birfers drool (as shown above). Case closed.
PLEASE kick Ray76 and Alpha 76 OFF Of Free Republic. They have no business calling ANYONE an “Obot” the way they both attack Ted Cruz!
Last post in this thread:
You DID make empty assertions. Which is the only point I am making in this thread. You have not substantiated your allegation regarding poster “alpha 76”.
I have read your posts and engaged with you for at least a year. You do support Obama. That’s your business.
“You are an arrogant, know-it-all JERK!” - Your powers of persuasion are overwhelming.
I have said NOTHING about anyone other than posters here, specifically you and “alpha 76”. I have said NOTHING about any one else AT ALL. Where do you get off calling for my being banned?
I have said NOTHING about Cruz AT ALL.
I invite you to review the thread.
YES, you should be banned. It is not my call, but you are sticking up for someone who probably will be banned. Take that into account. And? I have never voted for Obama and I have worked hard against Obama. I just won't stand for LIES and stupid ideas from anyone.
I have said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about that. I ONLY said that you have leveled allegations about a poster and asked you to substantiate them. THAT IS ALL.
What is your problem?
If you are not an Obama supporter, I apologize. However at times you seem so.
I absolutely came down very hard on an IDIOT who was attacking the eligibility of Cruz.
YOU then jumped into that argument.
I have a suspicion that you post here, on FR, under more than one nic. However, that is not my concern. I DO have the right to defend myself, and I DO have the right to support, vocally, candidates like Ted Cruz.
If I may be so blunt, in light of the foregoing I think you say what you need to say for the situation. I’d rather not get into that but instead return to my original point which is that you leveled an allegation against a poster for which I can not see any support. I know nothing of alpha 76, do you? How do you know that they do not have any legal training? I’m not going to carry any more water for this poster, but from the posting history I don’t see how you can make such a personal criticism of another poster.
I am well aware of the position of the owner. I have said NOTHING about Cruz. NOTHING.
Do NOT put words in my mouth.
I only post under one ID.
When someone posts legal NONSENSE -—
It is very fair and very appropriate to point out that the person making the silly post is not well trained on the subject.
If he were a lawyer, he could be disbarred for making such incompetent legal assertions in any Court.
Moderators: I have never attacked Ted Cruz,while I know he is not technically a natural born citizen by Article two of the Constitution, he may have the right to be the President under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Since article 2 was not enforced for obama, there is no justification to enforce it on Cruz. I do not know what Kansas 58 agenda is, but it is not in the best interest of Free Republic.
I am a Conservative Republican
Bithers are idiots
That is my agenda.
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.