Ping!!
Apocalypto
50 States versus powderedwigs
It amazes me how people can think Ted Cruz can be a natural born citizen of Canada and be a natural born citizen of the United States. While we are at it since his father was a Cuban citizen at the time of Ted’s birth, Ted is also a natural born citizen of Cuba. WOW! I don’t think this is what our Founders meant by Natural Born Citizen as a requirement to be U.S. President....common sense tells me that one can only be natural born on the soil he or she is born on.
This video is shallow, illogical, and just plain wrong.
If you don’t know why, you are too ill informed to be posting on Free Republic.
Yet 2 states have already confirmed he is eligible to run.
The equation has changed greatly now that the balance of the Supreme Court has been disrupted. A lawsuit is now much more likely. I am not sure how people will take it when a panel of liberal judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gives Cruz the thumbs down and then the Supreme Court deadlocks 4 liberals vs. 4 conservatives and the decision is left standing. It is not going to be pretty.
Which is why Ted cannot state he is an originalist constitutionally and maintain he is eligible to be president.
Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3084490/posts
Grow up.
Placemarking.
Now the slogan is consistent constitutional Ted... WHAT a sick joke...
And lawyer Rubio is and will always be a Constitutional anchor baby.
Think about it with all Obama’s Syrian refugees he has imported, start bearing children, they will be just as eligible as both Cruz and Rubio... Some legacy for the preservation of this nation. Sharia law will be the law of the land. Stupid people.
Thank you for posting this. Now I really understand what natural-born citizen means. What I still can’t understand is why, with so many good candidates, would anyone want to take a chance of Cruz’s and Rubio’s status?
14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness
April 10, 2011
The definition of “natural born†comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States†at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?
Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis†& the law of “parens patriae†(the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive†allegiance at birth was to the United States.
This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.
During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.
Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One†standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One†in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:
[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good
[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.
Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One†union.
“Jus sanguinis†& the law of “parens patriae†and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.
The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance†to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others are aliens in the eyes of the law of the US Constitution.
Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:
See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:
No, they would not have.
If your candidate is so convinced that they’re ineligible, why doesn’t he go to court? Or does he know better, as he said in September?