Nobody cares what you think.
Posted on 05/06/2013 7:09:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
Ted Cruz’s address at the annual South Carolina Republican Party dinner Friday helped feed growing speculation that the freshman senator from Texas is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — and raised yet another round of questions about his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.
Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother and Cuban-born father, and was a citizen from birth — but that Canadian factor puts him in the company of other past candidates who have had their eligibility questioned because of the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Far too much crap to address on a point by point basis. Fortunately, no body bothers reading it and being mislead by it.
Sorry, can’t hear you; buzzed off.
Nobody cares what you think.
Says the master of Verbal flatulence.
Does my natural right to keep and bear arms require the 2nd Amendment?
Happersett comments were not a part of the per curiam ruling.
Not English Common law. English STATUTORY law. Get it right.
Between the adoption of the Constitution in 1787 and the end of the war of 1812 - in 1815 - Presidents Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln and Johnson were all born.
Were none of these U.S. Presidents qualified because England considered them English according to English law?
If we had been respecting English Law, then the answer is "yes." Since we didn't respect English law, and had instead replaced it with American law, the answer is "no."
Good to hear.
So you hold that the laws of a foreign nation has no bearing upon the natural born citizenship of an American?
I'm aware of that -- which explains why Happersett isn't operative on the question of Presidential eligibility.
The comments essentially amount to judicial scuttlebutt.
a. The birther movement is right...and everybody else is wrong, including all those people whose business it is to know what's in the Constitution. Or...
b. Happersett never has been recognized as the definitive last word on "natural-born citizen" and the whole movement has been built on a false premise.
So, which is it?
You are attempting to present me with an argument called "the fallacy of false choice." You limit my answers to "either or" with the implication that there are only two answers, when in fact there may be another answer.
You are also presenting me with the fallacy of "argumentum ad numerum/argumentum and populum", as well as the fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" I'm not going to bother answering fallacies.
Numbers don not prove truth. Popularity doesn't prove truth. Authority does not prove truth either.
Do you know what proves truth? Evidence. The evidence indicates that the Country has been badly misled by British Trained lawyers, (several of who wrote books) and by a mis comprehensions of the intent of the founders when they created article II.
And now Jeff is back to his Kindergarten level tu quoque argument of "I know you are but what am I?"
What a child.
Yup, this is Jeff's level of discussion.
Panamanian law is irrelevant to the status of American citizens. That being said, McCain was born on the Navy Base in Panama, not in Colon, as so many people falsely claim.
Minor v Happersett is not a case of the court getting something wrong. It is a case of the court getting something right. Courts get things wrong sometimes, and that is the point.
Depends on what you mean. The natural right exists, but whether the government recognizes it or not is no sure thing. Articulating it in the Constitution certainly helps the ability to hold on to it.
The Government has a tendency to interpret the Second Amendment in the same way you guys interpret Article II; As having a nonsensical meaning and causing stupid results.
The BEST argument against you is that YOUR interpretation produces stupid results. The founders weren't stupid.
So, as I posited in one alternative, your answer boils down to an assertion that, for over 200 years, constitutional scholars, lawyers, jurists and experts have been mistaken and it is only the birthers who have discovered the truth.
Isn't that about it?
Okay, whatever you say...
I agree. The Fourteenth Amendment did not give women the right to vote. That’s why the 19th Amendment was necessary.
I agree that the eligibility for POTUSA is a matter of concern as expressed by the Founders i.e. no foreign allegiance. Not withstanding all comments and subsequent laws that are argued as to eligibility I look at what is actually in the Constitution, at least the version I have. 1)Section 1 ARTICLE II is explicit and defining in that “No person except a Natural Born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;......”. This is a distinct expression of difference between a ‘citizen’ and a ‘natural born citizen’ and this distinction is carried into ARTICLE I Sections 2 and 3 as to Congresspersons. 2) Amendment XIV Ratified July 9, 1868 Section 1 stipulates “ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”. This amendment mentions nothing about such persons being considered as ‘natural born citizens’ only plain ‘citizens’. This is consistent with previous constructions in the original Constitution. One can ask what is missing or discrepant between Article II and Amendment XIV. I will argue that what is such is the factor of parentage which was included in the debates of the Founding Fathers and very wisely so.
Thanks, that may be the reference I lost, but I think it was much older than 1934. Will do a search tonight.
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.