Posted on 01/11/2016 6:06:32 PM PST by TBBT
No it is not because the issue is one citizen parent versus two citizen parents. Cruz is not eligible under the origination Constitutionalists.
What is funny is that no one on this thread has even mentioned the Constitution and the very strong possibility that CRUZ IS NOT ELIGIBLE<<<
NO!...What is funny is... as a newbie to FR..... YOU have spent most of your short career here bashing Cruz!
http://www.freerepublic.com/~mollypitcher1/
Should Cruz get the Nomination will you go back over to DU and bash him some more??
(I rest my case your Honor!)
Rand is mouthing off because they won’t let him debate Thursday. He’d better go back to Bowling Green and get ready for a tough Senate reelection battle. The KY “democracy” will consider him very vulnerable.
Tell me again what the Constitution said about parents. LOL!
Well the first congress which included many of the authors of the constitution didn’t agree with your definition. They passed an immigration bill in 1790 which said that the children of citizens, born oversees “shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
Yes, it’s all smoke and it’s pretty silly.
And why not then admit that Donald Trump inherited British nationality from his mother despite her US Naturalization status, since Britain does not recognize the US naturalization process as having any effect on British nationality?
Maybe that's inconvenient? Or maybe that makes trump a flaming hypocrite.
The problem with all your argumentation is that you assume, wrongly it turns out, that having a dual citizenship means that you can’t be a natural born citizen.
If that were true, which it is most assuredly not, then Trump too would be barred from the Presidency due to his dual nationality, US and UK.
That’s ridiculous. If your reasoning leads to absurd conclusions they you need to reexamine your reasoning. Either your predicates are wrong or your logic is wrong. In this case it’s ALL wrong.
Citizens plural meaning two American parents.
The First Congress as well as the Framers were very familiar with Vattel and he was the reference for Natural Born Citizen. BOTH parents must be American Citizens, not just one.
Yet, for some reason, they failed to put that in the Constitution. If that's really what they meant, it would have been a simple thing to add. Eh?
I think he can say whatever he wants about any subject he wishes and get TBBT to post it widely for him.
No! Everyone at the time knew what it meant because they were all knowledgeable of Vattel’s Law of Nations. If something is well known to everyone it does not need explaining. If “ice cream” was used in some wording, would it be necessary to explain it? Of course not because everybody knows what ice cream means. Vattel’s Law of Nations was the supreme authority at the time. It was taught in Universities, cited in Supreme court and lower court decisions even to 2008, studied and discussed at great length.
They put in “natural born” meaning born of two citizens and on native soil. It was Vattel’s definition. The reasoning was quite simple. they wanted to avoid the possibility of anyone with DIVIDED LOYALTIES ever obtaining the office of president and commander-in-chief.
Some have attempted to use Blackstone’s comments on “subjects” interchanging the word subject for citizens, but it won’t fly was because we have no king and England didn’t have citizens, they had subjects.....subject to the king.
At the time they did not need to define natural born citizen. Everyone knew what it meant. We also find Vattel referenceed in the Declaration of Independence.
The full title of his work was THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF
NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL.
Donald Trump was born in America of Two American Citizens. He was born several years AFTER she became an American Citizen AND in the Constitution as it was written, the Nationality of the FATHER was considered the Nationality of the child, the US being a patriarchal society. Donald Trump is a US citizen on all counts.
It doesn’t matter what Britain recognizes or does not recognize. British law is not American Law. The British Queen cannot have anything to say over an American Citizen. All that stopped in 1776! Remember! Brits drive on the wrong side of the road as far as we are concerned, and in Britain it is the LAW.
So you lied when you said two parents was in the Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up.
He is eligible because one of his parents was a U.S. citizen and it was a principle of English law at the time the constitution was ratified that the children of English citizens born overseas were considered natural born citizens.
........................................................
ENGLISH LAW DOES NOT APPLY! “Children of English SUBJECTS” was extinguished in 1776 on the signing of the Declaration of Independence. English SUBJECTS were persons SUBJECT TO the Monarchy. GEORGE III was no longer our King. American Citizenship was completely different from an Englishman Subject to the Monarchy. England did not have Citizens, it had subjects.
For crying out loud, what do you think the Revolution was all about? By the time the constitution was ratified, English Law had been a long forgotten thing of the past.
That is a very good question. His dad had fought for Castro.
VERY well said.
Yeah, plenty of people have dual citizenship.
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.