‘The View’ Launches Ted Cruz Birther Movement Following His Presidential Bid (Video)

The Wrap ^ | March 23, 2015 | Jordan Chariton

[Nero Germanicus]

Your “what if” scenario belies the facts in evidence. Hawaii became a state seventeen days shy of TWO YEARS before Obama was born. Senator Barry Goldwater could have become president and he was born in Arizona Territory BEFORE statehood. Charles Curtis WAS Vice President of the United States with Herbert Hoover and he was born in Kansas Territory a year BEFORE statehood.

Obama qualifies solely on the basis of his birth in Hawaii. His parents are irrelevant since neither of them had diplomatic immunity or were members of a foreign military. Obama’s parents were married at the time of his birth.
Senator Cruz qualifies because even though he was born in Canada, his mother was born in Delaware and U.S. law makes him a Citizen of the United States At Birth. Senator Cruz’s parents were married at the time of his birth.
Here’s the section of the law of the land that covers both of them:
Obama: 8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Cruz:
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

[OneWingedShark]

The Constitution does not seem to being even part of the curriculia of the students whom are practicing lawyers and politicians - What is happening?

The Constitution's not being taught because to do so would undermine the current legal thinking and system — what we have now is upsidedown compared to what the Constitution says, and a lot of that is because the USSC has usurped a position of authority that it does not and, indeed, cannot have (the assumption that the constitution means what the USSC says it means).

You see, as Jesus said: the one who is sent is not greater then he who sends him — the above supposition is the court claiming to be greater than the Constitution, which is the very document which authorizes and commissions the court.

The second thing that's in our upsidedown system is the Congress — the reason that the EPA, NSA, IRS, BATFE etc get away with it is precisely because the Congress wants them to. Allowing these regulatory agencies to essentially make law allows the government to implement policies and Congress to wring their hands crying about how they can't stop the executive branch. — this despite that the Congress can make and repeal laws, that they provide for the funding, that they can investigate matters themselves.

To allow the Constitution to be taught as meaning what it says (and not what the courts say it says) would undermine this whole system.