Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I must state the obvious
The me times ^ | jan 9, 2016 | jdirt

Posted on 01/09/2016 9:36:28 PM PST by jdirt

For the last few days various outlets have been bringing up the eligibility issue of the presidency. And all of them have been so dishonest. Some have stated that it needs to be litigated, some have stated that citizenship and natural born citizen is the same thing, some have stated that only one parent is required when born abroad, still another purported that our first 7 presidents weren't born here so its ok, totally ignoring the grandfather clause, Glenn Beck.

It kinda po's me when people say it should be litigated when anyone with an ounce of integrity should know that it was tried a gadzillion times.

First they lacked standing, then it was the wrong jurisdiction, then it was the wrong defendants, Then the case wasn't ripe, then the candidate became president and so it was moot, the courts said it was a political question, and the congress said it was a question for the courts, as a finishing touch the congressional research dept. came up with i think 3 different lying butt papers on the issue to help congressman explain it to their constituents.

when all else failed the people begged their congressman to not certify the election. that didn't work either. Moral of the story, the people have no recourse what so ever when the elite decide to allow a person ineligible to run for president.

So here is the obvious thing I need to state so that you know what this thing is leading to so there is no misunderstanding:

A person born in this country to 2 non-citizens (like Chinese for example) who grows up in a communist country to the age of 21, then comes to the United States and spends the next 14 years here will be eligible to be president at the age of 35. This will be the ultimate ineligible candidate. And there won't be a thing your grandkids will be able to do about it. Now if someone wants to argue that this is a natural born citizen, you get what you deserve.

Little by little they have been warping the definition of NBC to meet their desires. And yes, a definition absolutely can be inferred by contemporaneous documents. Intellectual dishonesty is the worst kind, if thats possible.


TOPICS: Education; History; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: 2016election; canada; cruzrubio; cuba; election2016; jindalsantorum; naturalborncitizen; newyork; obamamccain; tedcruz; texas; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: kinsman redeemer

Exactly! With all the crazy things that are happening in the world now, all sorts of situations will come up, and anyone who wants to deny such people the Presidency will be a “hater.”


21 posted on 01/09/2016 10:28:18 PM PST by Nea Wood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Did you read the article?

It’s too bad the constitution was tested by the “historic” first black POTUS - a constitutional law “professor”. They really did a number on us. Now look at us, you don’t even have to be born here anymore and you can have dual citizenship and still be deemed eligible by your supporters.

We’ve let personal motives overcome the intent of the constitution.


22 posted on 01/09/2016 10:28:22 PM PST by Aria (Abortion = murder, the taking of a human life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
How can a Constitutional requirement be changed by mere statute?

I've been doing some digging today and it's obvious to me that the question of Cruz's citizenship was completely governed by the provisions of the 1952 immigration and naturalization act. Under that act's provisions he would have to fulfill certain residency requirements as a young adult, or his citizenship would go bye-bye.

Natural born citizens' status are not controlled by statute. It's a fact of nature.

If Ted Cruz was a natural born citizen, he would have been a citizen regardless of what our immigration and naturalization statutes require.

He would have been a natural born citizen no matter when in American history he had been born.

Which quite obviously isn't the case. There's no way he would have been even a citizen from birth throughout most of American history, because of the way our statutes read.

I repeat my initial question: How can a Constitutional requirement be changed by mere statute?

23 posted on 01/09/2016 10:34:21 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Aria
We've let personal motives overcome the intent of the constitution.

I think what you are saying is that we've become a nation of men, rather then a nation of laws like the founders intended. Cruz supporters claim Cruz is a constitutional expert, then they cheer as he wipes his ass with it.
24 posted on 01/09/2016 10:40:24 PM PST by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Godebert

Your post made me flashback to my junior high civics class.


25 posted on 01/09/2016 10:44:58 PM PST by Read Write Repeat (Not one convinced me they want the job yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Congress has naturalization authority. Congress can legislate exactly what is required to make a citizen. Congress can even provide statutes that guarantee citizenship at birth -- and has done so. What Congress cannot due is redefine the language of the Constitution outside the Amendment process. So, yes, Congress can create a "citizen at birth" even if the citizen does not meet the "original intent" definition the Framers understood as "natural born citizen" and used in the language of the Constitution. The citizen has effectively been "naturalized at birth" by statute. So though I don't disagree the lawsuits have been tossed, I believe that was the result of contemporary politics in play and the fear of being labeled "racist". Our Founders had more spine, and I believe they would not have cowered as our "leadership" did.


26 posted on 01/09/2016 10:56:04 PM PST by so_real ( "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Yes, ironic isn’t it?

I agree with Trump when he says Cruz ought to go to court and get a Declarative Judgement so the matter can be decided. Otherwise this could get a lot uglier if Cruz gets the nomination.

Can you imagine Cruz v Hillary?
The Ineligible v The Indicited.


27 posted on 01/09/2016 11:03:20 PM PST by Aria (Abortion = murder, the taking of a human life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Aria
The Ineligible v The Indicited.

That is a nightmare scenario. The thought of it sends a shiver down my spine.
28 posted on 01/09/2016 11:19:29 PM PST by JoSixChip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
You think Obama was bad, wait until there is a card carrying communist in the white house.

I don't care who you are, that right there is funny as hell.

He's the mother-floppin' Manchurian Candidate, jd!

29 posted on 01/09/2016 11:22:57 PM PST by IncPen (There is not one single patriot in Washington, DC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
There should be a Trump Cruz debate on eligibility,
Trump would get smoked.
Any Dem would get smoked too.
That is why this is a non issue.
30 posted on 01/09/2016 11:41:31 PM PST by right way right (May we remain sober over mere men, for God really is our one and only true hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria

That was tried too. There was a guy sometime ago that requested a declaratory judgement that he was eligible to run for president and they wouldn’t do it. I mean they really tried everything they could.

Thats why all this talk has got me so poed. Its like the last 7 years didn’t even happen. I don’t know how this matter will be resolved unless Trump takes it on himself and files suit against Cruz.


31 posted on 01/09/2016 11:44:00 PM PST by jdirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Lord have mercy! I’m shocked that this is an issue!

Frankly, as one who cast her first ballot for Nixon, got out of a sick bed to vote for Reagan the first time, and was one of the proud few who wasn’t a dem in my NC district to be a republican to vote for him the second time around, I’m astounded that ANYONE would have issues with Cruz, and not with Trump!

They ARE the very BEST in this election! So, stop the infighting, and pray those are the two on the ballot!


32 posted on 01/09/2016 11:59:20 PM PST by dixiechick2000 (Crazy, wacko bird hobbit, and STILL proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Maybe our constitution should be amended to take any doubt out of the presidential eligibility issue.


33 posted on 01/10/2016 12:49:16 AM PST by Jukeman (God help us for we are deeper in trouble.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

Oh indeed


34 posted on 01/10/2016 12:55:47 AM PST by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdirt

It isn’t complicated. Yes, that person would be considered natural born. However, that person would have a tough job convincing voters he or she was American enough in culture.

Laws are laws, words mean things, and whenever a line is drawn there will be individual examples that we don’t like. That hit the letter of the law but forget the spirit. One would hope that there would be a free press to call on such a candidate’s loyalty to America. Such a person is allowed to RUN for the presidency but is not guaranteed the job.

No one checked with actual real documentation to see if Obama even met the letter of this law. He never met the spirit of being American. And there is zero legit proof he met the legal eligibility, especially when the fact that he used other people’s social security numbers his whole life proves there is something wrong with his citizenship.

Really, being natural born means, when you were born, were you an American? Period.


35 posted on 01/10/2016 1:05:24 AM PST by Yaelle (Since PC is not actually "correct," it should be renamed Political Pandering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Duchess47

Rubio was born an American. Thus he is natural born.


36 posted on 01/10/2016 1:06:27 AM PST by Yaelle (Since PC is not actually "correct," it should be renamed Political Pandering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
How can a Constitutional requirement be changed by mere statute?

Because the Constitution does not define "natural born citizen," we must look to the law to define it. If the birthers are correct that there are multiple types of born citizens, why doesn't the law reflect this? Why has not a single judge ever accepted such an argument?

37 posted on 01/10/2016 2:40:58 AM PST by iowamark (I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

the Law of Nations: CHAPTER XIX: Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it.

Emer de Vattel

38 posted on 01/10/2016 3:19:07 AM PST by RC one (race baiting and demagoguery-if you're a Democrat it's what you do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

The law is meaningless with regard to NBC. All that matters is...
WHAT DID NATURAL BORN MEAN WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED?
Congress can’t make word definitions change by decree.


39 posted on 01/10/2016 3:21:26 AM PST by freedomjusticeruleoflaw (Western Civilization- whisper the words, and it will disappear. So let us talk now about rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jdirt
If you're concerned about this being bad for Cruz, it's actually helpful to have it peak and be put to bed now than have it blow crap all over the place in September...You can make a difference

Now for a short public service announcement to all on FR:
We need to ensure we don't get another Obama-like America Hater as the next President.
The best way to ensure that is to actively support a candidate as the next President.
I donate to the candidate I support and you should too, else, your "support" really doesn't have any meaning.

It's even worse if you use FR and don't donate. If you are one of those who feel it's OK to use FR daily w/o helping pay to keep the lights on, then please don't complain about the welfare leeches because, functionally, you are no different than any other who enjoys the fruits of others' work for your own benefit. Also, don't be surprised if others decide that your opinions are as worthless as your non-donations - hypocrites aren't worth listening to.

PS - If you are one of those who cannot afford even a small donation to FR or a candidate, God Bless and happy FReeping!.....

Donate to FR

40 posted on 01/10/2016 5:34:36 AM PST by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson