Before you, no one has ever said anything about the parents having to be born in the US.
Posted on 04/17/2016 5:57:25 PM PDT by writer33
Saw them when they came out. Remember, I’ve been studying and writing about this eligibility issue since 1964. So, this business of suggesting I am supposed to somehow lack the basic information about the subject matter is rather silly and unproductive.
We are supposed to be afraid to say Cruz is an “illegal alien,” and be cowed into silence.
Deace has been a Cruz slappy for months and months. He’s been on board when Cruz said Trump was to blame for the Soros-funded violence in Chicago, and all the rest of Cruz’s slanders.
Exactly. Straw man. No one says NBC requires two NBC parents. That would demand an infinite regress.
I haven’t gotten into this much, since the chances of Rafael Edward Cruz winding up in December 2016 with 270+ electoral votes are vanishingly small, so this will never need to be adjudicated.
However, there are two strong points against Cruz being an NBC:
1) Born to an alien father in a foreign land, and
2) Obviously, a natural born citizen of Canada (whatever else he was or wasn’t).
I don’t believe the authors of Article II would have regarded anyone born to an alien father in a foreign land as NBC, and I also don’t believe they would have accepted the idea of one person being “natural born” in two or more than two places.
As I said, it’s irrelevant because of Cruz’s un-electability, but those are two strikes against him.
Because there are no honest Repub officials and no honest judges. Which is exactly why Trump is winning.
Statues and cultural decay cannot change original intent.
If a Constitutional amendment were to be proposed, they would probably have to adopt an entirely different term other than "natural born citizen".
Before you, no one has ever said anything about the parents having to be born in the US.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about "running for President", in fact, it doesn't even recognize the existence of Presidential elections.
There is no restriction at the Federal level against anyone "running for President", ballot access is up to the State Legislatures and there's no reason in principle an ineligible person couldn't be listed on a ballot, but ineligible to receive electoral votes.
Bullshit. Both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.
Try again.
The transcript then continues: "He then read the 5th clause of Article II, Section I of the US Constitution, and argued that children born to US citizens abroad are natural born US citizens under US law." Rafael Cruz was not born to U.S. citizens abroad. His father was not a U.S. citizen it is clear and he has not released documents that prove that his mother was. He has refused to do so.
I note that he cites no actual cases and nothing from the actual history of the drafting of the Constitution, such as John Jay's well-known letter to George Washington shortly before the "natural born citizen" phrase was adopted. Even if one were to accept the English common law concept rather than from natural law of the law of nations, the parents of Rafael Cruz in Canada were not under the sovereignty of our sovereign, the people of this nation.
If one were to present this transcript in court or a brief, it would not be paid any serious attention.
I wonder if there will ever come a day when we can cease repeating the same blithering nonsense by people who think they have some new slant on things over and over again. I’m not optimistic.
With all due respect, the reasoning in Heller has nothing to do with the meaning of the “natural born citizen” presidential eligibility requirement in Article II. There are Supreme Court cases mentioning the phrase and on such issues as what law the Framers had in their intention on matters of citizenship, even a few on the actual “natural born citizen” phrase. Why do you ignore them and turn to what amounts to know arguable authority at all?
Don’t worry, the Dems will. And do you suppose they haven’t already selected the judges who will hear the case? Right on up through the appeals, lasting the entire general election cycle and beyond?
Got an answer for that, “Writer?”
All on the non-existent possibility Cruz will ever get to the General Election, of course.
“The Constitution doesn’t say anything about “running for President”, in fact, it doesn’t even recognize the existence of Presidential elections.”
That statement is a bald faced lie. The election of the President of the United States of America is mandated in the Constitution Article II Section 1. . . . He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows. . . .
“There is no restriction at the Federal level against anyone “running for President”, ballot access is up to the State Legislatures and there’s no reason in principle an ineligible person couldn’t be listed on a ballot, but ineligible to receive electoral votes.”
Yes, it is responsibility of each State to decide how the State’s Electors are to be appointed by the State. No, each State is not at liberty to appoint delegates for the purpose of violating a Constitutional article prohibiting the eligibility of a candidate for President, due to the supremacy of Federal Law.
Just to let you know, a few years back, nyc was giving bc’s to children of diplomats. They said about 200 of them received nys birth certificates. They didn’t care, cause they themselves probably could care less about america.
Every state that has looked at Ted Cruz’s eligibility has declared him to be eligible.
Just because there are some people who don’t agree with those court rulings doesn’t alter the fact that no jurisdiction has declared him to be ineligible.
Neither of Ted Cruz’s primary election opponents, Kaisch or Trump has challenged Cruz’s eligibility in court or before a state elections board.
Roger Calero is a naturalzed U.S. citizen.
What about the definitive jusicial rulings in trials on the merits that were held in Pennsylvania and New Jersey?
That's good dirt!
New York City issuing birth certificates to children of diplomats, ineligible to natural born citizens!
May the Google of the 2030's, 2040's, and 2050's dig it up!
Psst!
Without modern genetics, the only reliable way to trace inheritance is through the mother only.
Paternal counts for nothing, unless you've got a lab far beyond the ken of the 18th century!
Founding fathers and people of that time period were patriarchal. Precedence was to the man. Women didn't even have right to vote. The founders were smart. Things went downhill after women's suffrage.
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.