Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/19/2016 6:36:53 AM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Enlightened1
There are three ways someone can be a US citizen. He can be born in the US (regardless of who his parents are). He can be born outside the US to at least one US citizen parent, as long as certain criteria are met (those criteria are set by federal law and have been changed over time).

Everyone agrees that the first category of people are natural-born citizens.

Not true.

A Natural Born Citizen must be born of a father that was a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. Location of the birth is irrelevant.

Federal Law can not change this as the Constitution did not give congress the power to define Natural Born Citizen. It would take an amendment to the constitution to redefine Natural Born Citizen.

51 posted on 02/19/2016 6:59:14 AM PST by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1
I do not believe Cruz fulfills the qualifications of the Constitution.
52 posted on 02/19/2016 6:59:14 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

The oft-repeated “the Constitution doesn’t define natural born” is a ridiculous argument. The Constitution doesn’t define ANY word or phrase because every word and phrase had a commonly accepted meaning.


53 posted on 02/19/2016 6:59:44 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

The problem here is that te national socialist democrats WILL bring this to court. The GOP elite would NOT bring up Obamas to court.

What does this tell us?


54 posted on 02/19/2016 7:00:09 AM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1
It is specious to say the term wasn't defined in the Constitution. The only words defined are words that don't have commonly agreed meanings. The Founders used the term with purposeful knowledge of the definition widely held at the time. They based a great deal of the Constitution on the writings of Vattel and, evidenced by the communications & letters the Founders have left as records, paid particular heed to his section on Natural Born Citizenship. There are court cases that further reinforce the definition of the term as used in the constitution.

The current effort by BO and others to make the term Natural Born Citizen meaningless is a purposeful assault on our Constitution and National Sovereignty.

"212. Of the citizens and natives."

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.

We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

56 posted on 02/19/2016 7:00:31 AM PST by JayGalt (Come not between the nazgul and his prey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

But..... but..... but, I thought that nobody has standing to file such a suit. That is what many different judges told us when the suits were filed against the kenyan.


61 posted on 02/19/2016 7:01:37 AM PST by shooter223 (the government should fear the citizens......not the other way around)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

Well, standing is going to be a problem and this will DRAG ... which is the real problem for him.


67 posted on 02/19/2016 7:03:02 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

Ted Cruz is a superb lawyer and is at ease with going to court. Saying that he will be troubled by the prospect of being in a court action is like saying Jesse Owen in his prime would no doubt have feared putting on track shoes and running in a sprint.


80 posted on 02/19/2016 7:07:13 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

Actually its not fuzzy. At the time the Constitution was written the second example was considered natural born based on English custom.


95 posted on 02/19/2016 7:12:43 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

So, John McCain wasn’t eligible either (born in Panama)? I don’t see the Cruz disparagers here say anything about that.


99 posted on 02/19/2016 7:15:47 AM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

What about Cruz father? Where was he born? What was his nationality? What country was he a citizen of? Where did he live when Cruz was born? Seems like these would have some effect on the outcome.


131 posted on 02/19/2016 7:32:07 AM PST by Rennes Templar (I'm pro gun control: keep your guns under your control at all times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

This is irrelevant to anything that occurs before December 19, 2016 and perhaps before January 3, 2017.

There are no Constitutional barriers to ANYONE “running for President”, “being nominated”, or “appearing on the ballot” (except that individual State Legislatures may make rules about the latter).


171 posted on 02/19/2016 7:49:52 AM PST by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown, are by desperate appliance relieved, or not at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

Donald told ya, Ted, to get that taken care of MONTHS ago.

You took his suggestion as criticism.

Most who have observed politic know/knew the issue would not go away. The Dems would certainly try to make it a hot-button issue, if you got the nomination.

Better to take care of it now than later, assuming you do get the nomination this time or at a later time.

I recall posting in one of the early threads on the issue: it will dog you to the end, if you don’t get it adjudicated.


196 posted on 02/19/2016 8:03:32 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

That’s not bad news at all.

Settle it and drive on.


204 posted on 02/19/2016 8:06:44 AM PST by HLPhat (Preventing Global Cooling one tank full at a time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

Good news for cruz

His determination of eligibility is going to court

Put the matter to rest right now before the democrats grab it to use during the general election

Not tha Ted is going to ever win the nomination anyway


222 posted on 02/19/2016 8:32:50 AM PST by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

From the article: “Everyone agrees that the first category of people [born in the US regardless of who his parents are] are natural-born citizens. “

No, *everyone* doesn’t agree on that point. There is a line of reasoning based on deVattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ that the the parents have to be citizens. SCOTUS has never said that parents’ citizenship was irrelevant, only that born in the US of citizen parents is universally agreed upon as ‘natural born citizens.’


229 posted on 02/19/2016 8:47:08 AM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1
Very bad news. The 24-7 publicity if this goes to SCOTUS will last through most primaries.
270 posted on 02/19/2016 9:47:28 AM PST by entropy12 (Who is the ONLY candidate NOT controlled by Goldman Sachs & Robert Mercer? The Donald!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

Kinda late now after Obama set the precident that no birth certificate was required. Just a signature from a mob princess.


299 posted on 02/19/2016 11:02:09 AM PST by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1

I would expect that Cruz would immediately apply to the S.Ct. for expedited handling of this lawsuit because of the time factor on the election.

I would hope that the justices would handle this matter without imputing their own politics to an issue that could affect future candidates from both parties.

It doesn’t matter which way it goes, the country apparently cannot function in its Presidential politics until it is decided once and for all.


300 posted on 02/19/2016 11:12:37 AM PST by wildbill (If you check behind the shower curtain fInor a murder, and find one.... what's your plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Enlightened1; All

Illinois judge Maureen Ward Kirby not sure she has jurisdiction, Cruz attorneys allege papers not timely served at Cruz’s home:

http://www.tpnn.com/2016/02/19/bombshell-judge-just-said-something-about-ted-cruzs-eligibility-that-could-change-everything/

Hearing on Cruz’s motion to dismiss set for March 1.

https://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

Peace,

SR


315 posted on 02/19/2016 2:28:31 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson