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

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz is going to New Hampshire. Will they like him?
Washington Post ^ | August 23 at 6:30 am | Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan

Posted on 08/25/2013 7:24:55 AM PDT by SoConPubbie

Edited on 08/25/2013 7:26:09 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) is the hottest commodity in Republican politics these days, winning rave reviews everywhere he goes on the I

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Hampshire; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: cruz; cruz2016; naturalborncanadian; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncuban; naturalbornsubject; newhampshire; tedcruz; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 next last
To: DiogenesLamp
Not me. I regard Ron Paul as a complete nut. Wouldn't want him anywhere near the reigns of power. His son "Rand", is better, but still leaves me feeling a bit uneasy that he shares some of his father's Kookiness but manages to hide it.

I should have been more clear in that post.

What I meant, was those freepers who think that "Natural Law" means both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth.

English is prone to misunderstandings, vagueness, and wrong perceptions.

Mastering English, even for the "Natural Born" citizen, seems to be a life-time affair.
101 posted on 08/26/2013 1:56:07 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I read it differently, “...shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.” As I read it that means the Founders considered those born over the sae and outside the boundaries to belong in a single category. That category is NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.


102 posted on 08/26/2013 2:00:50 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
What I meant, was those freepers who think that "Natural Law" means both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth.

I should have been more clear in that post.

I guess I didn't make myself clear either. *I* am one such of which you speak.

Split citizenship is NOT natural. It didn't exist prior to 1922, and was only created as a side-effect of the Cable act. Prior to 1922, Women were automatically naturalized to be the same citizenship as their husbands. Children of married parents were ALWAYS born to parents of the same nationality.

103 posted on 08/26/2013 2:01:05 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
I read it differently, “...shall be considered as NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.” As I read it that means the Founders considered those born over the sae and outside the boundaries to belong in a single category. That category is NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.

"Considered as" does not mean "is." An adopted child may be "considered as" a family member, but they are not actually related.

104 posted on 08/26/2013 2:03:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

No problem, Greg. Many people were fooled because there was an actual birth certificate posted on the Internet which said “Colon, Panama” but it was a forgery.
Senator McCain was fortunate that his mother was still alive for confirmation.


105 posted on 08/26/2013 2:07:40 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Is,” “as,” that’s just parsing of 19th century grammatical expression. The bottom line is “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.”

What I think we can all agree on is that what it doesn’t say is: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall NOT be considered as natural born Citizens.”


106 posted on 08/26/2013 2:19:02 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Yeah, that one’s real special. “An apple a day . . .” ;-)


107 posted on 08/26/2013 2:21:05 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Hmmmm. But, the correct answer is . . .
the electors decide whether a candidate is a natural born citizen!!!

The Founders trusted the electors
and I trust the Founders!

God Bless America.
God Bless the Founders.
And, God Bless the Electors!

108 posted on 08/26/2013 2:25:14 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
I think I've made clear my position on this particular point. Children born in foreign lands to American parent(S) in the service of our nation are Natural citizens.

Children born of parents with differing nationalities? Not so much. Such didn't exist in 1787.

109 posted on 08/26/2013 2:26:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I've said this since the first time I saw this claim about both parents being citizens. When the Constitution was drafted, it was often easy to identify the mother, but identifying the father was inherently speculative. And, I just don't think many folks back then thought we should design an eligibility standard that evades simple proof. Americans have always been a very practical people.

It's just another one of those reasons that I have for doubt about the "two citizen parents" requirement. The Jews have always known that maternity is more reliable than paternity.

And, I agree! ;-)

110 posted on 08/26/2013 2:34:08 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I guess that there is a risk that the Canadians might draft our president into the Canadian army.

Be sure to mention that risk when pitching your view of the NBC clause to voters and to their electors. And, don't you understate the likelihood of that risk when you tell them! ;-)

111 posted on 08/26/2013 2:40:45 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
I guess that there is a risk that the Canadians might draft our president into the Canadian army.

My point is, they CAN'T draft "natural born citizens." They have no claim on them. If the Canadians have a claim on them, they aren't natural citizens.

A man that can be compelled by foreign law to fight against his country is not a citizen who is free from foreign influence.

112 posted on 08/26/2013 2:44:45 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
And, I just don't think many folks back then thought we should design an eligibility standard that evades simple proof.

No proof required. Legally, the Husband of the marriage is ALWAYS the father. That *IS* a matter of English civil law which we kept.

113 posted on 08/26/2013 2:46:39 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food
Hmmmm. But, the correct answer is . . . the electors decide whether a candidate is a natural born citizen!!!

Not really. They merely assume that he is, or else someone would have objected before it got to them. They merely operate with indifference as to what the term means.

114 posted on 08/26/2013 2:48:03 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
A man that can be compelled by foreign law to fight against his country is not a citizen who is free from foreign influence.

Listen, at first blush it seems like a rather ambitious move for a country like Canada to attempt to draft the president of the United States. But, I have to confess that I have never given much thought to that possibility.

HOWEVER, someone recently turned me on to this treatise on The Law of Nations. It's by a Swiss guy named Vattel who wrote it in French. I'm wondering what Vattel might say about the propriety of one nation attempting to draft into its army the chief of state/head of government of another nation.

See what you can find on that. I will abide by any rule Vattel endorses! ;-)

115 posted on 08/26/2013 3:00:26 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
No, you're right. In many of our states, there exist statutes just like that. Usually, the rule is framed in terms of a conclusive presumption that a child born during a marriage is the child of the father. The advent of DNA testing has shown that such statutes can create results that many folks find to be unjust.

Nevertheless, that rule is still the rule in many, many places. But, how can we force the U.S. government to adopt similar rules for purposes of its determinations of citizenship. I don't think they're required to follow state statutes and, even if they were, which state's statutes would prevail. Should NBC status depend upon what state the candidate was born in?

I think there are some holes in that analysis, parts we can't be sure were contemplated or intended back then. ;-)

116 posted on 08/26/2013 3:10:32 PM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Yes, you’ve made your position clear.


117 posted on 08/26/2013 3:37:20 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; Jim Robinson

This guy is just a flat-out, bald-faced liar.

His lies have been factually demonstrated and proven to be false again and again and again.

Why do we have to keep putting up with him here at FreeRepublic?


118 posted on 08/26/2013 3:39:04 PM PDT by Jeff Winston (Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You keep saying CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL wasn't talking about "natural born citizen" when he quotes Vattel on "natives or indigenes", but you never answer the question as to what sort of citizen he WAS talking about.

I've answered the question MANY TIMES now, just like I've answered ALL of your bullshit many times now.

He wasn't talking about any definition of citizenship. That's obvious to anyone who carefully reads the case.

119 posted on 08/26/2013 3:42:12 PM PDT by Jeff Winston (Yeah, I think I could go with Cruz in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; onyx; trisham; TheOldLady; DJ MacWoW; RedMDer; musicman; Lady Jag; Alamo-Girl; ...

If Cruz decides to run and he’s the strongest conservative running, I’ll support him to the hilt!! And I’ll bet most of the tea party patriots will too!!

Cato Institute: Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3059031/posts

To hell with Tokyo Rove, the GOP-e, Chis Kristy, Jeb Bush or any other steenking RINO!!

If Cruz runs, FR is Cruz Country!!

Go, Cruz, GO!!


120 posted on 08/26/2013 3:57:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-152 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