New Hampshire Consequences and The GOPe Road Map Moving Forward

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 2-10-2016 | sundance

[smoothsailing]

February 10, 2016

New Hampshire Consequences and The GOPe Road Map Moving Forward

by sundance

Last night was a Donald Trump win, period. A YUGE win. For context: Donald Trump beat second place, John Kasich, by more votes (currently 51,000) than Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton (currently 50,000).

A resounding victory for the vulgarian rebel alliance. Today, rejoice, dance well, be of good cheer and enjoy.

However, come sunrise we meet at the old mill, and ride south.

What does last night mean for the GOPe road map? That’s where it gets interesting.

Forget John Kasich; he is irrelevant as an individual candidate. Kasich has no organization, no structural pathway, no ballot access and is not a national candidate. However, his future endorsement of the GOPe candidate (Rubio or Bush) does bring with it his NH delegates…. but that is all.

The biggest loser is also one of our biggest loses, Governor Chris Christie. By coming in sixth, Christie has failed to make the cut for the upcoming CBS debate.

Debate Qualifications: Top three finish in Iowa, or Top five finish in New Hampshire, or top five polling nationally or in South Carolina. (link)

In addition to the debate issues and a financial hurdle, the sixth place finish essentially eliminates any path for Chris Christie. [Team Marco Rubio collectively breathe a sigh of relief.] However, with Christie gone – Jeb Bush also loses a key strategic partner for his own electoral pathway forward.

On the heels of a robotic debate performance, and with a poor fifth place New Hampshire finish, South Carolina just shifted into the MUST WIN column for Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s national strategy is dependent on building upon itself. We can expect some fireworks between camp Bush Super-PAC and camp Rubio Super-PAC over the next ten days as Rubiobot tries to ensure he regains his footing.

The CBS South Carolina debate is structurally set up to be as beneficial for Marco Rubio as the ABC New Hampshire debate was for Jeb Bush. New Hampshire was old GOPe money (Bush), South Carolina is new GOPe money (Rubio).

There’s a reason why Dana Perino lives amid her peers in South Carolina.

The FNB North Charleston GOP debate was filled with a Pro-Rubio audience, expect the same thing again with the CBS version. Remember, Paul Ryan and DC leadership approved the text of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s State of the Union response speech against Donald Trump. Nikki Haley was/is lined up to be a top-tier Rubio or Bush VP pick (again, go back to the original road map).

Almost all of the DC GOPe players who are part of the South Carolina coalition will be aligned with Marco Rubio. Examples Tim Scott, Trey Gowdy et al. Lindsey Graham already endorsing Jeb Bush means all of the GOPe eggs are in the GOPe camp candidates. There will be a stacked audience in opposition to the vulgarian Trump.

Those who qualified for the debate include: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and possibly/tentatively Ben Carson (depending on Carson’s polling). No more than six candidates will be in that debate – and it could possibly be five.

With Jeb’s fourth place finish in New Hampshire, ahead of Rubio, he has reasserted himself as the GOPe primary frontrunner.

If Jeb can finish stronger than Rubio in South Carolina Jeb will have the momentum he needs to begin re-establishing his argument. But that’s going to be a challenge.

To achieve his objectives, and to settle the nerves of the donor class, we can expect Jeb to attack Donald Trump in an effort to project his strength. Jeb’s only real opportunity to do this is during the debate.

The victor of the Bush -v- Rubio contest will be determined by who can project themselves (to the donor class) as the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump. Again, old money and old party teams preferring Bush, new money and modern GOPe types preferring Rubio.

The curious questioning on why Carly Fiorina continues in the race will probably intensify. But Carly’s later endorsement is not really a question – it will be either Jeb or Rubio.

South Carolina is going to be a real bloodbath ! There’s an increasing sense of desperation – and to make matters worse, Bernie Sanders is looming large over Hillary Clinton.

Remember, meet at the old mill – we ride at sunrise. !!

[andy1954]

He is probably a double edged sword. Hard for me to trust him. He has been all over the place and seems to make it up as he goes. Very unpredictable.

[kabar]

So are you. What prompted you to join FR six weeks ago?

[andy1954]

I was a member years ago. Got tired of it. Then I was a lurker for a few years just reading the stuff. And I have more time on my hands right now so I decided to jump back in to the fray. Not sure how long I will be entertained by all of this. But I am having fun right now. Interesting group of people.

[WhiskeyX]

“What is illiterate, ignorant, and stupid is the intentional and willful disregard of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution specifically enumerating Congress with the exclusive authority to establish all rules for naturalization, INCLUDING who does not need to be naturalized and is a citizen from birth, i.e. natural born citizen.”

No, what is illiterate, ignorant, and stupid is your failure to recognize that you are citing the wrong statute, which did not exist when Ted Cruz was born on 22 December 1970. You cited: “title 8 section 1401 Citizen at birth - subsection G qualifies Sen Cruz as a natural born citizen.” The statute applicable to Ted Cruz when he was born was:

66 Stat. Public Law 414 - June 27, 1952. TITLE III - NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION. Chapter 1 - Nationality at Birth and by Collective Naturalization. NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH. Sec. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; . . . (7) 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 ten years, at lest five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

After pulling the stupid stunt of citing a statute that did not even exist when Ted Cruz was born, you then stupidly proceeded to once again make the absurd claim that the Constitution granted Congress the enumerated power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” “INCLUDING who does not need to be naturalized and is a citizen from birth, i.e. natural born citizen.” In fact, the Constitution did the exact opposite by granting the Congress ONLY the power to naturalize persons who are not natural born citizens, including the children born abroad with one or two U.S. citizen parents who must be naturalized at birth or naturalized after birth to acquire naturalized U.S. citizenship. Neither the Congress or the Constitution have the power to change Natural Law or the facts of a natural birth, both of which existed thousands of years before the Constitution or the United States. This fundamental fact of Nature is confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court statement:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”

The U.S. Supreme Court statement recognized the fact that a statutory law can only make, authorize, or legislate naturalized U.S. citizens and not natural born citizens of the U.S. This fact is also reflected in the current U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, since the former document is not readily available, see:

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.

Note how the Foreign Affairs Manual says “8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents....”

66 STAT. PUBLIC LAW 414 -— JUNE 27, 1952 POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE; BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR AFFAIRS The Secretary of State shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this Act and all other immigration and nationality laws relating to . . . (3) the determination of nationality of a person not in the United States. . . .

It must also be observed how the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts are explicit in stating the citizenship is being GRANTED to all of the persons who “shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth,” and such citizenship can only be granted to naturalized citizens and never to natural born citizens, because natural born citizens are citizens by birth before any statutory law could redundantly make them a citizen a second time over again. See:

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;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe:
Provided
, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;. . . .

Bottomline, the efforts to claim a natural born citizen is defined by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts is utterly and totally fraudulent, because naturalization law is statutory law, and statutory law cannot define the Natural Law that determines who is a natural born citizen. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts grant citizenship, and U.S. citizenship can only be granted to persons who are being naturalized, whether they are children born abroad with U.S. citizen parents being naturalized at birth or after birth or they are alien citizens being naturalized as U.S. citizens after birth. Ted Cruz acquired U.S. citizenship by the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 granting him U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth. Ted Cruz is not and cannot be a natural born citizen, because he was born abroad with only one U.S. citizen parent, his mother, born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and cannot acquire natural born citizenship in the U.S. by a grant of citizenship from a naturalization law. Attempts to do so constitute the subversion of the Constitution and the U.S. Government.

[Robert DeLong]

Let me see if I have this right, you're saying you can't state unequivocally that your children are natural born citizens, yet you unequivocally state that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. Even though your children were born of citizen parents in a foreign country while in service to your country.

Then you point to Tribe & Olsen, neither of which BTW have any standing to determine what constitutes a naturalized citizen let alone a natural born citizen, to support your assertion that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. However, you don't use that to state the same about your children.

Am I understanding you correctly, or am I once again confusing you with some other poster? Only it turned out I wasn't confusing you with someone else at all.

You said: I want a ruling period. I will accept whatever is decided.

I unfortunately have lost faith that a good number of the black robed Supremes care about the Constitution our Founder's created for this nation. They have been steadily destroying this country over the decades, and even more so in recent times.

Again I state that any ruling other than a natural born citizen in a child born within the boundaries of the United States or her territories to 2 citizen parents is a subversive act that rises to the level of treason.

[kabar]

Let me see if I have this right, you're saying you can't state unequivocally that your children are natural born citizens, yet you unequivocally state that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. Even though your children were born of citizen parents in a foreign country while in service to your country.

Wrong. I never said that Ted Cruz is a NBC. He is a citizen at birth as distinct from being naturalized. He derives his citizenship thru his mother, i.e., jus sanguinis IMO my daughter is an NBC, but the matter is not settled law. It needs to be litigated.

Then you point to Tribe & Olsen, neither of which BTW have any standing to determine what constitutes a naturalized citizen let alone a natural born citizen, to support your assertion that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. However, you don't use that to state the same about your children.

Wrong again. I mentioned that the Senate commissioned an opinion from them on McCain. Based on that opinion, the Senate issued a non-binding resolution that McCain was eligible. In point of fact, the Senate has no say so on who is eligible and who is not. The issue of NBC is not settled law. It must be litigated.

You said: I want a ruling period. I will accept whatever is decided.

I have no choice. I can disagree, but it is not up to me. I want it resolved sooner rather than later given the many variables involved. I don't want another 8 years of questioning the legitimacy of the President. Obama was never vetted. He presented a fraudulent electronic BC. We really do not know where he was born nor do we know whether the child of only one Amcit parent is an NBC. The questions and controversy over Chester A. Arthur's eligibility raise even more skepticism about Obama. The issue of NBC is not settled law. It must be litigated.

Again I state that any ruling other than a natural born citizen in a child born within the boundaries of the United States or her territories to 2 citizen parents is a subversive act that rises to the level of treason.

The issue of NBC is not settled law. It must be litigated.

[Robert DeLong]

There are only 2 kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Citizens at birth can be naturalized citizens.

[kabar]

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

It can't be any clearer than that.

[Robert DeLong]

Yet they do not state they are natural born citizens. Again there are only 2 type of citizens. So why do they not state unequivocally they are natural born citizens?

Looks to me like the State Department in 2013 has tried to muddy the waters even further in subversion of our Constitution. Gee why does that not surprise me in the least?

This is what is absolutely misleading: who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization. I could interpret that to mean certain children born abroad may be considered natural born citizens (such as your children due to the fact you were abroad in service to the United States), but it doesn't mean all children born abroad qualify as natural born citizens. So I disagree it can indeed be much more clearer than that. Ted Cruz certainly had a problem with the transmission by the mere fact he had dual citizenship up until 2014. His mother further brings into question what her true status was in Canada. Her name appearing on the voting rolls of Canada make his case even more questionable.

Again I will remind you that you said: I never said my children were natural born citizens, while also stating that Ted Cruz is eligible (meaning he must be a Natural born citizen) while referencing the same document.

I can almost guarantee that if the Founding Fathers could be brought back they would say without a doubt Ted Cruz is ineligible. that in fact he was the type of person they were safeguarding against.

[kabar]

Yet they do not state they are natural born citizens. Again there are only 2 type of citizens. So why do they not state unequivocally they are natural born citizens?

FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Again, It is pretty clear isn't it? Natural born citizen has never been defined as it applies to the eligibility to be President. It is not settled law, it needs to be litigated.

Looks to me like the State Department in 2013 has tried to muddy the waters even further in subversion of our Constitution. Gee why does that not surprise me in the least?

It is not the State Department. It is based on US Code.

Again I will remind you that you said: I never said my children were natural born citizens, while also stating that Ted Cruz is eligible (meaning he must be a Natural born citizen) while referencing the same document.

Why do you spout such nonsense? Read my post #86 again. I never said Ted Cruz was eligible or that he is a NBC. What are you smoking? You appear to have some sort of comprehension problem.

I can almost guarantee that if the Founding Fathers could be brought back they would say without a doubt Ted Cruz is ineligible. that in fact he was the type of person they were safeguarding against.

Our Founding Fathers are not coming back. The eligibility of Ted Cruz should be litigated in the courts. It is not settled law. Your or my opinion is irrelevant. Cruz is running for President and is on the primary ballots.

[WhiskeyX]

“It can’t be any clearer than that.”

Yes, it can be very much clearer than that by NOT taking the quotation out of context to aid in its use to perpetrate a fraud. To see what I mean, try quoting the same complete section along with the prior section. While doing so note how the Obama Administration created your quotation to obfuscate his ineligibility to be POTUS by attempting to twist the language and definitions to change them from what they had been before the changes were made in 2013 and in prior changes. Then compare to another quotation in the same Foreign Affairs Manual that directly contradicts Obama’s 2013 change to the Foreign Affairs Manual. See:

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7
Consular Affairs. 7 FAM 1151 INTRODUCTION... b. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23); INA 101(a)(23)) defines naturalization as the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever. . . For the purposes of this subchapter naturalization includes:... (5) “Automatic” acquisition of U.S. citizenship after birth, a form of naturalization by certain children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or children adopted abroad by U.S. citizen parents.

Note, the U.S. Supreme Court statement confirmed that a child born abroad can acquire U.S. citizenship only by naturalization at birth and only as a naturalized U.S. citizen, see:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”

Observe how the Foreign Affairs Manual section you did not quote warned the reader the section you quoted is in any event no more than a statutory definition being used for the purposes of administering the statutory law authorizing those regulations and did not constitute a valid definition for the purposes of the Constitution.

I will also add the fact the Foreign Affairs Manual and all other sources claiming the definition of the natural born citizen clause used in the Constitution is somehow supposed to be undefined and uncertain is utterly false and should be regarded and rejected as complete hogwash. The definition and meaning are as plain and simple as the nose on your face, and it has not changed one iota in ten thousand years, except to the extent to which artificial insemination and surrogate mothers have blurred the distinctions.

[WhiskeyX]

[Quote]
Gaslighting

A form of intimidation or psychological abuse, sometimes called Ambient Abuse where false information is presented to the victim, making them doubt their own memory, perception and quite often, their sanity. The classic example of gaslighting is to switch something around on someone that you know they’re sure to notice, but then deny knowing anything about it, and to explain that they “must be imagining things” when they challenge these changes.

A more psychological definition of gaslighting is “an increasing frequency of systematically withholding factual information from, and/or providing false information to, the victim - having the gradual effect of making them anxious, confused, and less able to trust their own memory and perception.
[....]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gaslighting
[Unquote]

An example of such gaslighting is:

[Quote]
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”

c. The Constitution does not define “natural born”. The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
[Unquote]

Note how the above section falsely misleads by effectively denying the fact that Sir Edward Coke in Calvin’s Case 1608 established persons born abroad were naturalized or subjects-made and were not subjects-born. This observation of the differences between a child acquiring nationality by birth as an act of natural birth versus acquiring nationality at birth by an act of statutory law is about as settled as any law can get, especially when you note the U.S. Supreme Court statements that support the same definitions centuries later, such as:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”

How much more explicit can it be when the U.S. Supreme Court said, “”A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized...”?

[kabar]

7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents

7 FAM 1131.6-1 Status Generally

(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency (

TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

7 FAM 1131.7 Citizenship Retention Requirements

(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)

a. Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad were not required to take any affirmative action to keep their citizenship until May 24, 1934, when a new law imposed retention requirements on persons born abroad on or after that date to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent.

b. Retention requirements continued in effect until October 10, 1978, when section 301(b) INA was repealed. Because the repeal was prospective in application, it did not benefit persons born on or after May 24, 1934, and before October 10, 1952 (see 7 FAM 1100 Appendix L).

c. Persons born abroad on or after October 10, 1952, are not subject to any conditions beyond those that apply to all citizens.

d. Persons whose citizenship ceased as a result of the operation of former section 301(b) were provided a means of regaining citizenship in March 1995 by an amendment to section 324 INA (8 U.S.C. 1435). A more detailed discussion of the retention requirements and remedies for failure to comply with them is provided in 7 FAM 1100 Appendix L.

NBC is not settled law. It has never been litigated.

Under Ted Cruz's own logic, he's ineligible for the White House

"There's more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.

I will also add the fact the Foreign Affairs Manual and all other sources claiming the definition of the natural born citizen clause used in the Constitution is somehow supposed to be undefined and uncertain is utterly false and should be regarded and rejected as complete hogwash. The definition and meaning are as plain and simple as the nose on your face, and it has not changed one iota in ten thousand years, except to the extent to which artificial insemination and surrogate mothers have blurred the distinctions.

It is not so plain and simple as you posit. It has been a source of controversy for a long time.

Natural born in the USA: The striking unfairness and dangerous ambiguity of the Constitution's Presidential qualifications clause and why we need to fix it.

[WhiskeyX]

“NBC is not settled law. It has never been litigated.”

That is just you denying the litigation the quoted and unquoted litigation just as the authors you are relying upon falsely stated.

“There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago.”

Yet, you have been correctly informed Cruz and the others lied when they made those statements as evidenced by numerous quotations of the applicable case law and statutory law. You don’t get to just ignore and deny the statutory law and case law by simply denying their authority.

For one example you do not get to simply ignore or deny: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”

“But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so.”

There you go again denying the literal words of the U.S. Supreme Court. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”

“In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded.”

No, what I see is you quoting to paid political liars who deny, misquote, and misrepresent the written statutory law and case law with impunity as you sheepishly accept and repeat without heeding those laws and the requirements of common sense. You cannot even be bothered to note and criticize the innumerable ways in which their claim definitions create impossible conflicts with past usages of those laws. Ted Cruz could not have claimed U.S. citizenship of any kind before 1922 and the enactment of the Cable Act. If Ted Cruz had been a natural born citizen, it would not have been possible for him to not be a U.S. citizen. There are countless more such examples where the attempt to claim Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen is grossly inconsistent and incompatible with past case law and past citizenship practices. Yet, you choose to turn a blind eye to these impossibilities.

“Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.”

All the more reason why the attempt to allow Ted Cruz to campaign for a Federal office he cannot lawfully serve is an illegal act, unethical, immoral, and a threat and risk to the Constitution along with any and every U.S. Citizen and voter.

[WhiskeyX]

Answer thee questions:

1. Who was Ted Cruz’s natural father?

2. Who is Ted Cruz’s natural mother?

[Robert DeLong]

You said: I am refuting your claim that Cruz is a naturalized citizen. The 7 FAM reference I provided clearly states that he is not a naturalized citizen.

Since you explicitly stated Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen, that leaves only the option of him being a natural born citizen. If it were clear then I suggest we would not even be having this discussion.

From what I have read, not to mention what I have been taught my entire life, Ted is a citizen by naturalization who was unencumbered from having to go through the naturalization process because of conditions met as laid out by Congress at the time of his birth.

I guess about the only thing we will both ever share a consensus is that Ted is a citizen. But from there on is where we differ. You claim he is not a naturalized citizen and yet needs clarification as to his being natural born.

Since clarification still needs to be applied as far as many Americans are concerned, it leaves it up to citizens to determine his Constitutional qualifications. While it may indeed be in the nation's best interest, it is not in Ted's best interest. Which is why you will never see Ted initiate the seeking of such a ruling. If Ted had the nation's best interest at heart he would have not only denounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014, he would have sought out a ruling on his natural born status at that time as well.

Ted has each and every pundit from Rush to Levin convinced he is another Reagan, but Reagan would have sought to put this issue to bed if he had any doubt regarding his eligibility to become President, because he would not have allowed a cloud to hang over the President's head. Also unlike Reagan, he really would lose the general election. He doesn't have the appeal or charisma that Reagan had to pull voters from every demographic in sufficient numbers.

[kabar]

[WhiskeyX]

Yes, his Canadian birth certificate is the evidence demonstrating Ted Cruz was alien born with Canadian citizenship and could acquire U.S. citizenship only by the authority of the U.S. Immigration Act of 1952, which authorized a child born abroad and outside U.S. jurisdiction with at least one U.S. citizen parent the voluntary option to adopt U.S. citizenship by naturalization at birth. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. said “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”

[kabar]

That is just you denying the litigation the quoted and unquoted litigation just as the authors you are relying upon falsely stated.

No, it is a fact. The authors I am relying on included Laurence Tribe, acknowledged authority on the Constitution and Harvard professor, and Ted Olson former Soliciter General of the United States. I provided you with a 103 page paper, well researched and documented, that outlines the problem and legal issues involved. You just can't handle the truth.

What yoo or I think is really irrelevant. The issue has never been litigated and needs to be. It is not settled law. If it were, then why did the Senate feel it necessary to issue a non-binding resolution on McCain's eligibility?

[kabar]

Cruz and my daughter became citizens of the United States by birth, not naturalization. My wife became a citizen of the US thru naturalization. There is a distinct difference in the process used for the transmission of derivative citizenship by blood, jus sanguinis, and the naturalization process. Neither Cruz nor my daughter received a naturalization certificate.