Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Texas Fossil

Don’t mean to burst any bubble, but “understood” = assume and assume will make an ass out of u and me.

Not being any Constitutional authority, I have read lots of what others, who are, have to say regarding NBC and frankly NBC is like a bottomless pit, lots of questions and assumptions, but very few answers.

From those scholars, it sounds like Cruz is NBC simply because of “one US Citizen parent” regardless of birth location.

Until I had read what smarter folks had to say on NBC, I too thought Ted was not eligible. Now that its been explained somewhat, I think he very well could be and don’t see any Constitutional path to prove otherwise. Wish I had saved that info, but it was on FR, somewhere.

Cruz has been studying and arguing the Constitution since he was a kid, if anyone could straighten out our messes from a Constitutional standpoint, he could. I also think the man has enough integrity to not try to trick the NBC issue. That’s why I will support him 100%.


105 posted on 05/01/2013 8:14:14 AM PDT by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]


To: X-spurt
Some Cruz eligibility issue articles from the net
108 posted on 05/01/2013 8:40:58 AM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: X-spurt
Until I had read what smarter folks had to say on NBC

There are no "smarter folks" on NBC. They are a propaganda agency.

114 posted on 05/01/2013 10:39:27 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: X-spurt

“Not being any Constitutional authority, I have read lots of what others, who are, have to say regarding NBC and frankly NBC is like a bottomless pit, lots of questions and assumptions, but very few answers.”

I, likewise, am not a Constitutional authority. However, while this natural born Citizen subject seems complicated, if you look at it through the eyes of natural law, it really isn’t. A child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country CANNOT be anything but a natural born Citizen.

When you start adding in parents from other countries or birth in another country, you get away from natural law and into manmade law. A country has to legally define who is a citizen and what processes you need to go through to document their citzenship.

There has been some horrible case law on this subject, not to mention a bunch of gymnastic interpretations to try to clarify who is a citizen and who isn’t. If you’re born in the country to two citizen parents, no law or interpretation is needed.

If a man is born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father, that child is not only an American citizen by manmade law, but also a Cuban citizen. Dual (or tri*) citizen - dual (or tri) allegiance. (*He may also be a citizen of Canada, depending on whether they have birthright citizenhsip or not.)

Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, while all nice people, are American citizens by manmade law. If you’re looking for someone to guide your country and military who has no allegiance to another country, these people don’t fit. If their parents got them passports to their home countries (India and Cuba) when they were born, like Ted Cruz’s mother did to America, unless they have renounced their Indian or Cuban citizenship, they may be able to go back to their parent’s (father’s) country and run for office there. Don’t know that they could, but these are things you can run into with dual citizens. A natural born citizen can’t do that.

I’m very interested to hear Ted Cruz explain how he is eligible to become President.

Don’t we have any Americans, born in America to Americans, who can do this job properly?


118 posted on 05/01/2013 3:39:55 PM PDT by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: X-spurt
Not being any Constitutional authority, I have read lots of what others, who are, have to say regarding NBC and frankly NBC is like a bottomless pit, lots of questions and assumptions, but very few answers.

Have you seen this?

This is part of a law book which sums up the work of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania regarding which British Statutes were in effect in Pennsylvania. Here is the title page of the book.

Here is the link to it if you want to see the book yourself. It was in high demand, and they had to print another addition of it in 1847.

http://archive.org/stream/digestofselectbr00robe#page/n8/mode/1up

122 posted on 05/01/2013 4:13:13 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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