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

Skip to comments.

CRUZ releases birth certificate
Dallas Morning News ^ | 8-18-13 | Todd Gillman

Posted on 08/19/2013 6:05:19 AM PDT by praytell

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-209 next last
To: Cold Case Posse Supporter; taxcontrol
“And in accordance with the Constitution, the very first Congress pass the very first rules of naturalization in the naturalization act of 1790 which state that a natural born citizen is a citizen of US Parents regardless of where the child was born” And it was repealed 5 years later making your argument ‘Null & Void’.

Now, you tell me, who knew more what "natural born citizen" meant when used in the Constitution, those who wrote that 1790 bill and the one who signed it, or you?

Remember, George Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention and many members of the Congress in 1790 had been part of bringing about the US Constitution. Remember that the Constitution was ratified in 1787, and the law of 1790 was only 3 years later.

They used "natural born citizen" in the 1790 law to describe the child born to US citizens who were overseas at the time of the child's birth. Who is right about the use of that term, them or you?

61 posted on 08/19/2013 9:15:45 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
I would argue that our side is the side that has following the rules as part of it's platform. Although, we do not always follow the rules.

Maybe if we did, we would be known as the side that always follows rules instead of the the "hypocritical" side.

62 posted on 08/19/2013 9:17:37 AM PDT by nitzy (You can avoid reality but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

They used to say I wuz crazy...

...but I showed ‘em

I SHOWED ‘EM ALL!!!!


63 posted on 08/19/2013 9:19:57 AM PDT by Mr. K (Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and then Democrat Talking Points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
One can be a citizen by place of birth or by bloodline. Cruz is a citizen by bloodline.

That discussion on bloodline is here in State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:

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

As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a counter-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

The bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.

So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.

In sum, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.


64 posted on 08/19/2013 9:22:13 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
One can be a citizen by place of birth or by bloodline. Cruz is a citizen by bloodline.

That discussion on bloodline is here in State Department, Foreign Affairs Manual 7 FAM 1131. Specifically, it says about the presidency:

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

As you can see, the pamphlet concludes that a statuatory natural born citizen is not necessarily a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Note first that it does not say: "such a person is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

Note second that in arguing "not necessarily" that the pam recognizes that a counter-argument can forcefully be made that the person is a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Also note that saying "does not necessarily imply" indicates that the record does "seem to imply". Otherwise, the formulation "does not necessarily imply" would not be used. The forumulation would be: "does seem to imply that the citizen is not a citizen for Constitutional purposes."

The bottom line is that bloodline citizenship has been called "natural born citizenship" by no less than the Founding Congress and signed by President George Washington.

So, in short, the analysis is that the record “does seem to imply” that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency, although it “does not necessarily imply” that such is the case.

In sum, the weight of the debate is on the side of those who say that a bloodline citizen is eligible for the presidency.


65 posted on 08/19/2013 9:22:24 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Revel
Have you ever wondered why it is that every candidate choice put before you is inherently flawed.

I noticed that in '08. If they'd gone strictly by the letter, The Boy Wonder's ticket would have been kicked out. McLame's too because technically he wasn't born on a US base although some claim US held the city of Colon. Nader's running mate, Gonzalez' mother was born a Mexican citizen so we'd have had a mess with that one heart beat away.

66 posted on 08/19/2013 9:24:22 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Revel
Have you ever wondered why it is that every candidate choice put before you is inherently flawed

I noticed that in '08. The Boy Wonder wasn't in any shape or form eligible. Going strictly by the letter, which we should do, McLame wasn't either. He wasn't born on the US military base but in Colon although some wanted to let that slid. Nader's running mate, Gonzalez's mother was born a Mexican citizen which would have been a disaster with his "one heartbeat away". What are the odds of the top three tickets being at the very least questionable unless it was intentional. One is an oopsie. Two is a wake up call. Three is an outright concerted effort.

67 posted on 08/19/2013 9:32:20 AM PDT by bgill (This reply was mined before it was posted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Truth2012

Did you mean “renounced”?


68 posted on 08/19/2013 9:37:02 AM PDT by Churchill Gomez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: praytell

Citizenship rules in Canada are irrelevant if Canadian rules don’t follow natural law.


69 posted on 08/19/2013 9:39:54 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Bet he does...”release his college transcripts”

What Cruz really needs to release are records on how he financed his college education. This is the what Obama absolutely refuses to declassify, wonder why!

70 posted on 08/19/2013 9:46:28 AM PDT by Menehune56 ("Let them hate so long as they fear" (Oderint Dum Metuant), Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

I’m sure that you know the founders put a clause in the Constitution, making every citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of Constitution eligible to be President.

If you didn’t know that, read Article II. If you did know that, you should be ashamed for what you are trying to do.


71 posted on 08/19/2013 9:47:59 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

If Ted Cruz decides to run for the presidency and he’s the best conservative and strongest candidate running, I’ll be supporting him to the HILT!! FUBO!!


72 posted on 08/19/2013 9:55:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; WhiskeyX
"Sorry but you are incorrect. Title 8 section 1401 subsection G clearly shows that Mr Cruz has US citizenship from birth. Thus he is a naturally born citizen and has never required naturalization."

Huh?

Congress has the Constitutional power to write laws to determine who may be a "natural born Citizen?"

Since when?

Please cite that authority in the Constitution.

73 posted on 08/19/2013 9:59:33 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: smokingfrog

North American Union! Include Mexico and we need not have to worry about illegals. Invade and give the downtroden peons some rights! Kick out the 400 families that run everything and bring freedom to Mexico.


74 posted on 08/19/2013 10:08:29 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Like all laws, the U.S. Code is based on the constitution and, as we all know:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” — Minor v. Happersett (1874).


75 posted on 08/19/2013 10:11:45 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Loosen your obamaroid kneepads, obamaroid.


76 posted on 08/19/2013 10:13:19 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus

Cite the Constitutional authority that gives the Congress the power to write laws to determine who may be a “natural born Citizen.”


77 posted on 08/19/2013 10:21:39 AM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Since the Constitution states in Article 1 Section 8 as one of the powers of congress is to establish the rules of naturalization.


78 posted on 08/19/2013 10:26:10 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Cold Case Posse Supporter

It was replaced 5 years later by congress who further clarified the rules of naturalization as is their enumerated power.


79 posted on 08/19/2013 10:28:06 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: justlurking; WhiskeyX
"I am sure that you know..."

Well, you got that part correct. However, since you want to make shame a part of this dialog, lets look at the rest of your defective argument.

Article II: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution...

My query expressly referred to a child sired by an Englishman at a point in time after adoption of the Constitution, for the sole purpose of avoiding the issue you try to raise (I was tempted to refer to the War of 1812 to underscore my point).

80 posted on 08/19/2013 10:33:28 AM PDT by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." This from a guy who never had a real job and his family starved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-209 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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