Skip to comments.
Sen. Cruz formally gives up Canadian citizenship
Yahoo/AP ^
| June 10, 2014
| WILL WEISSERT
Posted on 06/11/2014 6:13:39 PM PDT by kingattax
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 last
To: ansel12
That is an excerpt from CATO.
41
posted on
06/11/2014 10:13:14 PM PDT
by
ansel12
((Ted Cruz and Mike Lee-both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Comm as Ginsberg's importance fades)
To: SoConPubbie
" Sorry, but your opinion does not trump the US Constitution, US Law, or SCOTUS rulings and none of those have any such definition. Not even close. "
I did not give any definition of NBC. The Constitution does not define NBC so that could be argued indefinitely. I'm using logic.
The framers added the NBC requirement to ensure loyalty to the US. Simply having one citizen as a parent and being born on foreign soil does not logically fit the obvious intention of the framers.
Using your line of thinking a US citizen man could travel to communist china, have sex with a communist Chinese citizen and the child would still be a natural born US citizen qualified for the presidency. There is no difference in this scenario and that of Ted Cruz.
To: SoConPubbie
So there is no historical data that argues otherwise? Zero? Right? Wrong. It is a question, and you know it.
43
posted on
06/12/2014 4:07:51 AM PDT
by
HMS Surprise
(Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
To: SoConPubbie
Anyone who ignores the information they’ve dug up is the real loser. Knowledge is a powerful weapon.
44
posted on
06/12/2014 6:29:39 AM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
To: HMS Surprise
So there is no historical data that argues otherwise? Zero? Right? Wrong. It is a question, and you know it.
As of right now, it is not a Legal question, and therefore, of no importance in determining whether or not Ted Cruz is NBC.
By Law, by the Constitution, TODAY, he is NBC.
The only thing that will change that is an Amendment to the US Constitution, a new US Law, or a new SCOTUS ruling.
45
posted on
06/12/2014 6:35:37 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: DJ MacWoW
Anyone who ignores the information theyve dug up is the real loser. Knowledge is a powerful weapon.
Once again, dig up all of the background information you like, as of TODAY, Ted Cruz is legally and constitutionally NBC.
The only way to change that and have the LAW agree with your OPINION is to Amend the Constitution, pass a new US Law, or have a new SCOTUS opinion.
46
posted on
06/12/2014 6:37:18 AM PDT
by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: SoConPubbie
I guess that you didn't really read my first post:
Actually this subject has been discussed thoroughly on Obama threads. Obama didnt qualify. His father was not and never wanted to be a citizen. Cruz father became a citizen.Post 18
47
posted on
06/12/2014 7:21:49 AM PDT
by
DJ MacWoW
(The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
To: SoConPubbie
Then once again we've redefined the meaning of the Constitution in direct opposition to the intent of the framers.
The laws and SCOTUS decisions being quoted didn't exist when the framers added the NBC requirement. Yet the intent of the framers was clearly to protect the United States by limiting the presidency to loyal Americans. Simply having one citizen parent does absolutely nothing to protect the United States from the rule of a foreign born president who could be surreptitiously loyal to another country and form of government.
I have serious doubts the framers would be ok with a person born and raised in the middle east as a Muslim under Sharia Law being qualified to be president simply because the father was a US citizen.
FYI, I'm not worried about Ted Cruz, I live in Texas and did my part in getting him elected. I'm worried about the above scenario which will happen and with grave consequences. Take our current situation as a case in point.
To: SoConPubbie
You are not only wrong, you’re dead wrong. I love Cruz. I would love to support him for Prez. I can’t support him in the primaries because I know this will be an issue. If he wins the nomination however I will support him wholeheartedly.
49
posted on
06/12/2014 6:16:38 PM PDT
by
HMS Surprise
(Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
To: SoConPubbie
You are not only wrong, you’re dead wrong. I love Cruz. I would love to support him for Prez. I can’t support him in the primaries because I know this will be an issue. If he wins the nomination however I will support him wholeheartedly.
50
posted on
06/12/2014 6:16:38 PM PDT
by
HMS Surprise
(Chris Christie can STILL go straight to hell.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson