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
Your definitions are false.
Nobody with any legal authority agrees with you.
Exactly. They parse words until they make no practical sense at all. So, they toss in this “native born” crap. In no law of the US can they cite a single line of ‘native born’ being used conversely to ‘natural born’.
And a Christian.
“I just wish I didnt get bad vibes that Cruz is hiding his real intentions.”
What the heck does that mean???
Are your “bad vibes” running up, or down, your leg?
Some people have agendas and will never learn. They have a conflict of interest.
Rafael Cruz is a great man, freedom lover and speaker.
But are you aware, there was somebody who came here and alleged that Rafael is PRO COMMUNIST, because he fought against Batista during the same revolution that Castro led?
I could be wrong, but pghbaldy MIGHT assume that Ted Cruz is only pretending to be for border security and against amnesty.
That really, he just wants our votes and then wants to turn America into the Third World.
Uh, no, pghbaldy, THAT would be Obama, NOT Ted Cruz.
Since Oct 19, 2013
Do you like Gladiator movies?
Ted will run and even dirty harry and nazi piglosi can’t stop him.
Although I'm not a lawyer that sounds like a reasonable explanation.However,if he's a candidate in '16 you *know* that the Maoists will challenge his eligibility...and his loyalty...at every turn.And yes,they'll do it with a straight face.It seems to me that the best case scenario would be for SCOTUS to declare him to be eligible during...or before...the beginning of the campaign.
You will be a very busy person then. A burning bush could appear and the voice of God could say, "Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen" and you'd still have a lot of people saying, "Yes but what about Vattel and the Happersett decision?"
Ted Cruz Ping!
If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
There are going to be RINOs passing themselves off as constitutional conservatives who work very hard at keeping conservatives out of power. They’re probably the same ones who aren’t talking about needing to cut into the hispanic vote, like they were just a few months ago.
That is how it has always worked. Same for the dictator, same for McLame. I have friends from the military who were born in France and the other in Belgium. Both sets of parents were citizens, on foreign soil by way of military orders. It really makes no difference. If you mother goes into labor while visiting in a foreign country it does not automatically make you foreign born. Foreign born has always meant not born in this country and not born to citizen parents. That is why the use of the 14th amendment to validate anchor babies is unconstitutional.
“Whenever I can” is rather limiting for me, DoodleDawg.
I can’t do this but for a very limited time each day.
But I get your point.
He's a big Rand Paul pimp.
And I use that word pimp in the non-perjorative sense.
Rand Paul might make a good vice president if he could get back on principle rather than pragmatist politics. Why would he support rino Mitch McConnell? Regardless of how he moves forward I'm not sure he needs a pimp. (I meant that in the pejorative way of course)
Of course he is a citizen by birth. The legal question is whether that is the same thing as “natural born citizen”. It’s a legal question we ALL deserve to get an answer to. It would not be fair to Ted Cruz to run and win the Presidency and then have a SCOTUS with Obama appointees rule that he is not eligible. Every candidate and every voter deserves to have a set-in-stone, legally locked-down answer to the question BEFORE running or voting.
That’s all I’m saying, and it’s all I’ve ever said about that. It’s what I said at a committee hearing at the Nebraska legislature. We all deserve answers, and the judicial system is ROBBING us of that right, by deflecting the cases with the excuse that it’s nobody’s business.
Everybody has their opinion of what is meant by the term, but what we ALL need is a SCOTUS decision. BEFORE we spend our energy, money, and votes. That is not too much to ask, and the courts have abdicated their responsibility by refusing to give us that answer.
Let people talk. That's the only path to understanding.
The more you and others try to shut down discussion, the less people are going to arrive at the same conclusions you have.
For my part, I believe that Ted Cruz is exactly the sort of citizen the Framers had in mind when they crafted the restrictive eligibility requirements for the office of President. I believe he's cut from as good a stock as any of them were, and is eminently qualified to be our CIC.
But --- it took listening to, and reading the well crafted arguments of others on this board for me to logically work my way to that eureka conclusion.
Don't stop now. You're helping others to get to that same place, but you've got to be willing to let them talk too.
U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark is also not a good example to hold here as it was about two foreign immigrants with a child born in the US.
“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
You guys trying to impugn Cruz by repeating these legal citations without actually reading the cases are looking dumber every time you post that crap.
So our Founders would have welcomed with open arms the son of the King of England as President as long as the mother was a U.S. citizen?
What value is there in having one citizen parent rather than none? What would be the point?
If the reason for the NBC requirement is to eliminate a chief cause of questionable loyalty, how is that accomplished if one parent is a citizen of a foreign country?
That is your personal opinion.
It is not found in the Constitution or in any federal law.