Nobody cares what you think.
Posted on 05/01/2013 5:39:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Based on what?
The opinion of WHO?
You are ignorant of the law, willfully ignorant, you have NO legal authority on your side at all.
Cruz is ELIGIBLE, and those who disagree are ignorant.
Many here agree with that assessment. That is precisely why not one on the Left will raise the point if its a candidate from our side who could possibly have even a “gray” NBC issue.
That not withstanding, to stop this charade, someone must find some way to require unequivocal proof to the nobama questions. Only the SCOTUS has that ability, but they can not, under the Constitution, initiate the case in question.
Anyone with the direct factual knowledge about nobama, has maybe more than one vested interest in it remaining unproven.
If America is lucky enough to survive the progressive’s sabotage, the same NBC questions will remain unanswered a hundred years from now.
Screw you, troll.
The NBC issue will have to be settled, one way or another. Can’t wait. Everything is in chaos and going to get much, much worse.
You are distracted resources and money and time from things that really matter.
It is RUDE of you and INSULTING of you to try to hijack the conservative cause with your stupidity.
Cruz has my support, Cruz is 100% eligible to be President of the United States.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
Nobody cares what you think.
You are poorer for having read anything he writes. I don't even bother anymore, I just see his name and hammer him down like a wack a mole.
Here is the principle involved, illustrated for our amusement below.
Below is an Illustration of what you two might appear like together.
You are the one on the left.
Show me any LIVING expert that agrees with you, please?
The “troll” is usually the one acting alone, or in a very small group.
That would be: YOU!
The U.S. Department of State:
"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."From: 7 FAM 1130
Furthermore, on the topic of dual nationality automatically acquired at birth such as in the cases of Obama and Cruz, the State Department defines the problem as such (excerpted):
"Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice.From: US State Department Services Dual NationalityThe U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad.
However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws"
Can anyone cite any indication whatsoever that the Constitution's Framers were fine with the President of the U.S. being born owing allegiance to another country, other than those initially grandfathered into eligility when the U.S. first became an independent country?
If so, please provide the citation. Thank you.
The burden of PROOF is on you silly Birthers. You are INVENTING rules and laws and problems that don't really exist.
IF someone gains US Citizenship, at the moment of birth, that person is a Natural Born Citizen.
This IS settled law.
Jeff has already thoroughly refuted the birthers with a history of case law. They will continue to point to one constitutional professor in one obscure university against all the other constitutional scholars and lawyers in the nation.
IF someone gains US Citizenship, at the moment of birth, that person is a Natural Born Citizen.
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Hint: It's a trick question. lol...
According to the U.S. State Dept...
"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."Doesn't get any clearer than that. Even the U.S. State Dept acknowledges that it's an UNSETTLED issue that has never been resolved.
That means Obama's presidency has never been legitimized.
All he has to stand on so far is the Ankeny decision in which the judges ADMIT that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark DOESN'T say what they think it meant. The Ankeny ruling is purely made up from the judges' imaginations.
Will that work for me? Can I run a red light and say, "Well, the traffic control device didn't emit a green light but I believe that's what it meant so I haven't broken any laws in running the red light?"
How far do you think I would get with the same rationale the Ankeny judges used? Hmmm???
Barnett, Keyes et. al. v Obama, et. al.
US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf
What about "the consent of the governed" eliminates any voter from standing in challenging the Constitutional eligibility of a candidate for the office of President?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."/i>I don't consent to being governed by a president who hasn't proven to be Constitutionally eligible, and about whom eligibility doubts still remain.
The potential plaintiffs with standing: John McCain and Sarah Palin did not file suit nor did any of the political parties with candidates in the general election.
In 2012, it was the same thing. Romney and Ryan did not file suit. Challengers to presidential eligibility have never been able to convince plaintiffs with standing to file suit or even be co-plaintiffs in a class action suit. However in 2012, the eligibility challengers strategy shifted to pre-election ballot challenges where average citizens DID have standing to confront Obama’s eligibility. There were scores of such ballot challenges.
Two of the more famous were Purpura & Moran v. Obama in New Jersey and Swensson, Powell, Farrar & Weldon v. Obama in Georgia; average citizens with standing challenging Obama’s Article 2, Section 1 eligibility.
The first eligibility lawsuit in 2008 to be dismissed on standing grounds was Hollander v. McCain & The Republican National Committee in March of 2008. A Republican New Hampshire Primary related suit.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/hollanderv.mccain.php
In a republic, the “consent of the governed” also applies to the majority of voters who wanted the election winner to be the president. As long as both Houses of Congress send him bills to sign into law, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of his policies and the Senate confirms his nominees, he is the President.
Tough sh*t. As long as we are a nation with a government supposedly "deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed," anyone who withholds that consent because a candidate has FAILED to prove Constitutional eligibility SHOULD have standing to challenge that candidate's eligibility in any court of law.
Sorry. I'm NOT buying that. The Declaration of Independence does NOT say Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of "the majority of" the Governed.
The exact quote is:
""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."I DON'T consent. There are legitimate doubts as to Obama's Constitutional presidential eligibility. Cruz's, too, for that matter.
If you don’t consent, that’s just fine with me. You also have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Those legitimate doubts have had 317 civil actions in courts, from city small claims court to the US Supreme Court over the last five years with even more days to come. I have no problem with that at all.
However the Constitution, in the 12th Amendment, does say that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “shall be the president.”
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.