Posted on 02/15/2016 3:09:42 PM PST by dlt
Article claims that Cruz' citizenship papers are under seal, and he may not even be able to sit as a Senator.
The fact is that someone, at some point, is going to make Cruz' place of birth an issue, and this is far more meatier than the Obama birther issue.
Ok but it is incubate upon him to do all he can to make this clear to everyone. I really don’t like him, but I will vote for him if nominated.
ummmmm....I am not clear what you want him to make clear?
And IMO the level of complete and total ignorance by posters on this thread so far is embarrassing.
You trumpies are batshit crazy, going birther and Michael/Code Pink in one week.
If you spent a minuting thinking MCConnell and Obama would have taken an opening like that to throw Cruz out of the senate in 2013 when he rocked the boat on the establishment.
That is because I am not clear. LOL. If it comes out he is preventing anything from coming to light he is toast. That is all. Whatever it may be.
I don't believe, with all due respect, that not bringing a case establishes any law at all.
The fact remains that there is no decision on the merits of the issue of the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause in Article II. Therefore, Senator Cruz is taking a chance and it is difficult to find any evidence in the notes of the Constitution and its ratifying conventions that supports his eligibility because none such exist.
The only legit recent story I have read about document releases vs candidates, is this one..
As to any citizenship docs, all that is required is his BC which has been released. Any other documents would concern the parents and their short time in Canada after his father left Cuba. These documents, Cruz would not have, and the reason they are being sought is to verify what he, the father and the mother have said about their history.
For example, Teds mother has said that she never applied for citizenship and only had a temporary work visa. The newsies want a copy of the supporting docs that might still be in Canadian files, but they can’t get them because they have no legal standing to obtain them, so they blame Cruz for not releasing them.
See how that works?
I’m not going to argue this further. It’s typical political tit for tat...but Cruz seems to be the target of most of it.
Y'know I read somewhere that Donald likes to wear pink frilly dresses. I know this because it was reported in a Youtube video by the neighbor of the cousin of the husband of one of his undocumented immigrant housekeepers.
Y'know I read somewhere that Donald likes to wear pink frilly dresses. I know this because it was reported in a Youtube video by the neighbor of the cousin of the husband of one of his undocumented immigrant housekeepers.
Yes. it does exist.... There is more than adequate case law but no case has been adjudicated that looks like the case that Trump has been trumpeting..
The best explanation I have seen of Cruzes’ eligibility is in the congressional record of 1795, if I recall correctly.
Some legal scholars claim it was changed 4 or 5 years later, and there was a rewrite to a degree, but that portion relating to Cruz was not changed, as evidenced in subsequent law written over 100 years later. Since that time, the general understanding is that Ted Cruz falls under this interpretation of the natural born term as meant by the Convention.
Your reference to the 1795 case law is not any kind of applicable legal authority. In the first place Congress, which exists under Article I, has no power to define the intent of the Framers when they chose the Article II language of the presidential eligibility clause. In the second place the 1795 law passed by Congress in fact removed the word "natural" from the phrase "natural born citizen" as contained in the 1790 law and did so because of comments at the time that the 1790 law was an improper attempt to amend the Constitution without going through the required procedures.
Nor is there any law written more than a hundred years later that can define the meaning of the phrase in Article II concerning the presidential eligibility requirement.
In addition there was no rewrite 4 or 5 years after the 1795 act that purported to define the article II presidential eligibility clause and no evidence that anyone at the time thought that they could, as members or Congress, define the phrase in Article II or intended to do so. If there were any evidence from the notes of the Constitutional Convention or comments upon it such as in the Federalist Papers, you could cite it, but you cannot because it does not exist.
Quite frankly, and with all due respect, I do not think you post out any actual research or knowledge and could not cite any actual authority to support what you say.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp#time
You must have been physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least 1,460 days during the six years immediately before the date of your application. You must also be physically present for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of application. These requirements do not apply to children under 18.
The CRBA would show the mother’s citizenship at time of birth.
Cruz ‘character’:
1. Phony summonses mailed out, scaring people to vote.
2. Claiming Carson quit, ‘vote for me’
3. Campaigning in the 800 churches, showing video ‘vote for me’ with his preacher/father stomping for him.
4. ‘Brilliant’ lawyer, did not know he was Canadian citizen and that he is not Natural Born Citizen, not eligible for office of P or VP.
Just enough to beat Trump in IA, apologize and repeat?
Obama’s mother was not old enough to convey her citizenship to Obama if he was not born in the US. I don’t remember the exact requirements because I looked them up a long time ago, but I know I am close when I say there was a requirement that a person must have lived in the US for 5 years after their 15th birthday in order to pass their citizenship to a child if the other parent was not a citizen. Obama’s mother did not meet those requirements, which is why the ‘natural born’ argument is moot in his case.
If he was born outside of the US, Obama is not a citizen at all.
Love,
O2
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a ‘natural born citizen’ is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President (and VP), it is important for all U.S. Citizens to understand what this term means.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Thank you,
I try to only post when I am in a VERY good mood, and I think you would get some disagreement about my saintliness from most everybody who actually knows me. :^)
Love,
O2
Thank you. I have read the article and it points to specific authority that is quite persuasive. But, it is not so definite that the matter will not go up to SCOTUS if suit is filed by a person or group with standing. I believe that if that occurs Cruz will not prevail.
http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/#
Pretty powerful and easy to understand presentation about Cruz and Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.
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.