Posted on 01/17/2016 1:16:51 AM PST by RC one
Why not just abide by the constitution?
:-)
“It says if you want to be an American president, you have to be born on United States territory just like every other man who’s ever held the office was born in the contiguous United States and Hawaii.”—Rick Sanchez
__________________________________
Though the Declaration of Independence was dated July 4, 1776, it took 13 years to win and confirm this independence on the battle fields. A recognizable new nation called the United States of America, with its own constitution and government was established only in 1783 through the treatry of Paris signed by King George the Third and the representatives of the United States of America.
Prior to this date, anyone born in North America, presently known as USA, was actually born in a British Colony, controlled by England and was a citizen of England and pledged allegiance to the British Crown. Thus nine of the forty-three Presidents, who had served as president, were foreign born. These nine foreign born US presidents are listed hereunder:
1. George Washington (1789-1797) was born in 1732, in the British Colony of Virginia, and was a British subject, until the formation of the Government of the United States of America in 1789, when he became its first president.
2. John Adams (1797-1801) was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735.
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) was born in 1743 in the colony of Virginia.
4. James Madison (1809-1817) was born in 1751 in the colony of Virginia.
5. James Monroe (1817-1825) was born in the colony of Virginia, in 1758.
6. John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) was born in 1767 in the colony of Massachusetts.
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) was born in 1767 in the colony of the Carolinas.
8. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) was born in 1782 in the colony of New York.
9. William Henry Harrison (1841) was born in 1773 in the colony of of Virginia. He died in office from pneumonia.
The tenth US president, John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president. He was born in March 29, 1790, in the State of Virginia in USA.
http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html
go back and read article II, section I, clause 5 and pay special attention to the part about “or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution”.
I agree.
For the Presidency, most people, I believe would prefer the most stringent definition / application of this phrase.
The more leniency we allow, the more watered down it becomes.
As Phil Leotardo said on the Sopranos, “either this thing has meaning, or no meaning.”
We are being mislead by our rulers - because everything is based on “feelz”.
McCain ran for President and Obama became President.Now,we have a problem-Really?
I see many posts here and elsewhere on this topic.
The social media posts, by the thousands, are some of the most ill-informed, illogical posts. Most have no clue.
Many here have always been well-reasoned and supported.
Much of the problem, as I see it, lies in the sloppy use of the terminology used.
I see many saying “Ted Cruz is an American,” or he’s a “natural born American” or other worse variations.
The two operative terms here are “citizen” and “natural born citizen.” They are NOT equivalent terms in their rights, privileges and protections.
Most people operate on cult of personality. It's how humans are wired. Our overlords know this well.
Please be aware that Laurence Tribe is a big Lefty...
I don’t understand this argument. Cruz used the same at the debate. Because he is a “lefty” then anything he states is wrong? He is a constitutional law professor.
If professors are to be rated on their politics and only conservative professors can possibly be right, there are millions of people working as doctors and lawyers with a subpar education. The politics of the teacher does not have any bearing on the subject matter.
Tribe does believe in a “living” constitution apparently and even so doubts Cruz’s eligibility. The tendency to discount the messenger based on his politics rather than his message is very short sighted and narrow minded.
Thank you.
... IMPORTANT ...
This sounds like an echo of the discredited Red State report.
As I understand it, Red State’s census report does not prove she actively sought to vote in Canada.
Link here:
Both mother and father of Cruz — registered to vote in Canada [breitbart]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3381497/posts
[Last I heard, that was debunked, a ‘drive-by’ hit piece.]
Urg ... discredited Breitbart report — not Red State. Sorry everyone.
We have had a problem.
Agreed. Like I saw the other day, “if you chose your church because it’s hip and cool, you chose the wrong church.”
The same applies to presidents.
SOLUTION to CRUZ-BIRTHER CAGE FIGHT ...
AZ State Rep Calls For Constitutional Convention On Cruz Birth Issue
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3384579/posts
Further down I suggested a modest constitutional amendment [easier and, with rapid communications, also faster, with the speed of text-networking ...]
Amend to have English-speaking parents with Canadian citizenship also help qualify natural born status. Why not? It’s not some radical Islamo-nut nation like Indonesia after all. Even Quebec is not so bad either.
Cruz should not turn too openly for such a process. It would make him look weak. But this is a good way to flush out who wants to use rules and process to disqualify him.
[Okay, so I’m on Cruz’ side guys. But as to his eligibility, Tribe makes sense. Hate to say it. I despise Tribe. But words are not people. First I’ll quote Tribe, and then back up his claim of ‘original intent’.]
Ted Cruz’s fmr. professor says Cruz is a hypocrite on the Constitution VIDEO
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3384690/posts
Thursday following FBN’s broadcast of the Republican presidential debate, Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe attacked Sen. Ted Cruz ... for his stated on reasoning for his eligibility to run for president of the United States.
According to Tribe, Cruz applies a double standard to his interpretation of the Constitution, to which he deemed Cruz to be a ‘constitutional opportunist’ and a ‘hypocrite.’
‘I’ve done a lot of historical research on it, and so have a lot of other people, and the best evidence seems to be that what they meant... ‘
[snip]
“The funny thing is, that the kind of guy Cruz is, he’s always been this way. When he was my student he was this way. He’s always said the Constitution always means the same thing that it meant when it was adopted. That’s why he made this funny joke to Trump, you know, saying, the Constitution didn’t change since last September. Well, he thinks it didn’t change since 1788 when it comes to gays and, you know, women and other things. But when it comes to his own ambition, he’s suddenly becomes what he accuses me of being, and it’s a pretty true accusation, a judicial activist. That’s not the guy he is normally.”
Who would be the plaintiff in a legal challenge to Cruzs eligibility?
U.S. law does not state that a non NBC may run for the office of POTUS, but that only a NBC may hold the office.
States have law over who get put on the ballots. If enough states refuse to allow a person on the ballot, then that person would have standing to sue in each state.
States have law over how electors may vote. If an elector refuses to vote for someone who they believe are not NBC but he will be harmed if he does not fulfill the requirements for that state, then he would have standing.
The person/s who do not win in the election would have standing after the election.
Original Intent of our Founding Fathers [needs to be mondernized somehow ...]
Based on research by Greetings Puny Humans ....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3383942/posts?page=122#122
[quote]
The first from the law of nations, which requires the child to be born to 2 citizen parents and on American land. The second under British Common Law, as seen in Blackstone’s commentaries, which, though it removes the requirement of being born in the US, transmits the ‘natural born’ status through the father, not the mother.
Hence why a couple of the liberal scholars keep saying ‘under an Originalist view, Cruz would not be eligible,’ because that’s exactly true. A renowned originalist constitutional scholar (frequently cited by the supreme court) even said the same thing: ‘Cruz is not eligible.’
[unquote — post by Greetings Puny Humans]
It would have been helpful if our forefathers had included a glossary in the constitution. They didn’t though of course. I feel like United States v. Wong Kim Ark really sheds a lot of light on the subject of citizenship and natural born citizenship and the role of English Common Law in deciphering the founders meanings and intents.
‘It would have been helpful if our forefathers had included a glossary in the constitution.’
The Constitution may never have been ratified that way. Many words were vague-on-purpose to avoid bickering.
There is a serious and persistent attempt to amend "natural born citizen" out of the constitution, making Congress the gatekeeper. I think if that option was presented today, the propaganda mill would be put in high gear, just like it did for homo marriage and global warming.
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.