Posted on 08/26/2013 5:42:30 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Like you, none of us needed any more proof. Jenny = Peggy = Kathleen = Nicole = Dana ... token MSM 'GOPers' loving the attention and invites to the elite DC parties.
My daughter is a dual citizen too.
I want to show her the law that states she needs to renounce a citizenship to become president. Looking at the constitution, I can’t find it.
Please help me out.
I have found no such law. It would only be the convention of having one sovereign to whom you owe allegiance.
I’m fairly certain that Cruz did it so there would be quibbling.
so there would be NO quibbling. Sorry...correction
He is collectively naturalized, and is in law “citizen”.
Permit me to hint, a Canadian born citizen can run for president of the USA.
The part about renouncing citizenship is right after the part that grants a woman the right to kill an inconvenient baby.
A citizen of any country can become president of the USA, as long as they also hold US citizenship as well, from birth, and avoid the appearance of divided loyalties, by renouncing such citizenships when they run for president.
The constitution is living and breathing, my friend. :)
Is there anything else we need to add to ‘Shall be a Natural Born Citizen’ ??? Maybe “35, in dog years”.
Yes, the construction does occasionally fart as well.
The abortion clause, right to kill, would be such a fart.
Chillingly thoughtful reply. What (or all) I expect is that the SCOTUS do its Constitutional Duty and accept an appeal on the issue of Constitutional Eligibility.
I have no idea how the debased black-robèd SOBs might be inclined to rule. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, (?)Kennedy and (?)Roberts (God Help US!) hopefully might yet be expected to offer an honest opinion as Americans. The Ladies? (Not one of whom should have gotten one Republican confirmation) Kagan is a Communist. Both Sotomayor and Ginsburg are at the very least statists and very Left. On the fence with fear and weirdness: Breyer ...
But take a case and rule they must ... win lose or draw. Because that is the Constitution. Even if my humble opinion suffers a reverse, it will perhaps embolden the electoral officials of the sovereign states, enabling them to better fulfill their constitutional duties and vet presidential candidates much more thoroughly.
After that last resort, IMNVHO, we are 25 years closer to CWII. The issue: The Right of Sovereign States to leave the Union. This time, instead of Slavery as the stumbling block, it could be "Gay Rights," or Federal taxes.
The decline of the Supreme Court is real, with Federal power deriving from the anti-state interpretation of the Interstate Commerce issue in Roosevelt's day. The Founders only wished to prevent internal tariffs and strict interstate border controls on business. They did not wish to use "Commerce" as an excuse for complete Federal control of the lives of the citizens of the sovereign states and the Republic.
In the coming CWII, that will be the underlying issue.
Ping
Auto spell is kicking my butt
It is somewhat a function of another’s country’s laws. We have anchor baby law that makes those born in the US a US citizen. Other countries do not have such a law, so children of foreigners in their countries are not automatically citizens of their country.
It is somewhat a function of another’s country’s laws. We have anchor baby law that makes those born in the US a US citizen. Other countries do not have such a law, so children of foreigners in their countries are not automatically citizens of their country.
Permit me to hint, an adopted Indonesian citizen can run for president, then so can a Canadian born citizen.
It is my constitutional right to vote for any citizen from any country. And I’m voting for the Canadian born citizen. It’s my right, damn it! :)
Hear me now Ted Cruz, if you renounce your citizenship, I’m not voting for you. Changing citizenships is not like changing your underwear.
Xzins, dear friend and fellow countryman, I see the Dual citizenship as a benefit.
If Ted Cruz wins the presidency, he could then run for president of Canada. Our president would then be able to manipulate their currency and have access to their weapons and military.
To vacate that opportunity is just silly.
We have been looking at this the wrong way. It is an
opportunity to be exploited!!!
Padre, not entirely doctrinally correct. We have a de facto pernicious custom ... not a law. Another reason perhaps, for the SCOTUS to start taking "citizenship" seriously in all its manifold permutations.
What the he#$ is ‘collectively naturalized’ supposed to mean?
He’s a citizen from birth, and so no naturalization is required.
Read the law.
The law that you have repeatedly referenced on FR states that he’s a citizen from birth. If I’m missing something I’m happy to be enlightened, but so far you haven’t presented anything that describes ‘collective naturalization’ in any way.
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.