Posted on 08/26/2013 1:51:55 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
I heard him say the exact thing at a NH speech on C-Span. But it wasn’t as you describe it here.
He said the poorest people are being harmed the most by OBAMACARE. He named those groups you mentioned as being harmed the most because they tend to struggle, economically. At no time did he even imply, much less say, that the GOP has an alternative plan for these specific groups a la pandering to those groups. He talked about what HE believes should happen regarding healthcare. Widespread competition among insurers, portability of plans from job to job, medical savings accounts that kind of thing.
His entire point is to stop Obamacare.
He didn’t make a case for stopping it??
UH, that’s not the problem, the American people are mostly desperate to stop it, it’s the elite class that won’t lift a finger to deFUND it. Cruz said the grassroots must rise up if there’s any chance at all to stop it.
Obama’s father never applied for and nor did he even desire to apply for US citizenship. He was an anti-colonist who hated the United States. The Natural born citizen requirement was placed in the constitution by our framers to protect the union from just such a person as Barrack Obummer.
Huh?
When was his father ever a US citizen?
Is there some record of this Kenyan born British subject ever even expressing the desire to be an American citizen?
I guess I can't tell where in your post, the sarcasm tag was supposed to apply.
I think you know that his father wasn't born in Kenya.
OK--very good work. I guess we ignore the possibility that Texas exercises the option. We further assume as I think I have heard elsewhere that there are no other gaps in her record. If you assume Canada in 60, that still leaves her 4 years in the US after college and I believe she had a significant job record that supported that conclusion.
I wonder if you are working with the correct statute? There was a 1970's effective date amendment that changes the periods. I have been less worried about that for the reason that as I recall, the periods are more favorable for our position that the five years after 14 statute.
That still leaves you with a Con Law problem--invalidity of the Mother Citizen Child statute because the son of a father under those circumstances would not pass--that is subject to repair. You retroactively provide that a child of a father citizen who can prove descent (DNA evidence or other acceptable standard) gets citizenship on the same basis as the child of a mother citizen.
That still leaves you with the existing Con Law view of Article II Sec. 1 which is that it means within the geographical territory of the US.
You put the fix on that with an amendment that defines Natural Born Citizen to include someone who is a citizen at birth--maybe you add some other requirements like two of four grandparents and five of eight great grandparents.
If I were really the lawyer doing this, I would look for a way to get the current guy out of the definition because I still think there is hope that we can undo many of his acts which required a "president" to effectuate.
Yes. But you said he was a multigenerational American.
Either that was sarcasm, or you had a brain-fart, or there was some other higher point I’m too dense to get right now.
And I’ve already had coffee.
Maybe I should switch to Darksheare Coffee?
Ah. You meant his alleged genetic father rather than his official father of record.
“”””I think you know that his father wasn’t born in Kenya””””
Okay, Please inform us.... Where was the man who barrack claims is his father Born?
Not according to Robert Natelson, author of “The Original Constitution”
I don’t agree totally with his conclusions, because he does, a number of times, stress the Founders reliance on Vattel.
But according to him there is no doubt that what the Founders meant was a derivation of the British flavor... a “natural born citizen” was one who EITHER:
Was born on the land (Cruz wasn’t) or
Had a FATHER who was a citizen. (Cruz didn’t).
In addition, Cruz has (or had) dual citizenship. Conflicting allegiances. That’s a big problem.
This has zero to do with whether someone likes Cruz or agrees with what he says. We can’t elect someone ineligible just because we like what they say, that’s a tactic from the other side, where the outcome is more important than the means.
Why are these things the responsibility of the government? Do you think they should be? I do not.
His entire point is to stop Obamacare. He didn’t make a case for stopping it??
His case is that it hurts minorities, and the poor. That is a very lame case that befits liberals and social activists (ie, leftists). He did not make the case -- hardly anyone does, these days -- that it is inherently unfair to everyone, that it's socialized medicine. He didn't give reasons why it doesn't work and isn't right -- for anyone. He just whipped out the poverty card, the minority cards, the downtrodden oppressed cards. If that's not pandering I don't know what is.
As I said, he's among the best we've got, but he'll get nowhere by accepting their premises and speaking their code talk.
Well, IMHO, the whole idea about being “natural born” is that you don’t have to stretch things and mince words and do the hokey-pokey to conclude that the person is a citizen.
No possible conflicting allegiances, born in his native country, both parents citizens.
If you have to make all kinds of twists and turns and do all sorts of finagling then seems to me game over, the person IS NOT a “natural born” citizen.
If we rely on “political correctness” or an “evolving Constitution” then we are no better than the other side.
If people don’t like it, they can amend it. But they can’t ignore it.
I think the simplest is: American, born, bred and raised.
That is:
Born on US soil.
Born of two citizen parents.
Raised in America.
The founding fathers wanted that one office to only be held by someone with no hint of divided loyalties.
Exactly.
It was a combination of “Citizen of the soil” and “Citizen by blood”.
No other office has such stringent requirements, and the Founders made a point of stating this being a higher requirement than to be a member of Congress.
Correct.
Father, mother, four grandparents etc.
Ah. You meant his alleged genetic father rather than his official father of record.
I don't know where there is an office father of record for the present occupant of the White House. If you know of such a record, tell me where to find it.
Only legal father I would recognize would be found first in the official hospital birth file for the child; I suppose if you couldn't find one there, you might have to look for extraneous evidence.
U.S. Secretary of State Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was NOT born a U.S. citizen because Greisser’s father was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser’s birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth ‘SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER,’ therefore NOT “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” within the meaning of the Constitution.
Your quote has been discussed already, Rides.
First of all, it's yet another illustration of the complete historical incompetence of birthers. This is the second time birthers have brought up this quote, directly stating (the first time) or implying (the second time) that the quote was from the same person.
The quote you give wasn't from James Bayard. It was from US Secretary of State THOMAS Bayard, his son, and it was about half a century later.
Secondly (and more importantly) even THOMAS Bayard never stated that the child born on United States soil of an alien parent WHO LIVED HERE was anything but a natural born US citizen.
It seems to have been nothing more than an anti-birth-tourism position. If you moved to the United States and had a child here, that child was a natural born US citizen, even if the parents weren't. If you were TEMPORARILY VISITING the United States (according to the policy of Secretary of State Thomas Bayard) and had a child born here during that time, then no. That child, according to T. Bayard, (who was promptly taken back to Germany, by the way) was not a US citizen.
If Ted Cruz runs, he has my vote.
1) I didn’t say it was from the same person. It is from Bayard’s own son, the U.S. Secretary of State.
2) Neither Obama nor Cruz “lived here.” Cruz was born abroad. Obama left the country sometime after birth, a condition which U.S. Secretary of State Bayard specifically addresses in the citizenship decision thusly:
“The son, therefore, so far as concerns his international relations, was at the time of his birth OF THE SAME NATIONALITY AS HIS FATHER. Had he REMAINED in this country till he was of full age and then ELECTED an American nationality, he would on the same general principles of international law be now clothed with American nationality.
...”By section 1992, Revised Statutes, enacted in 1866 — “All persons born in the United States, AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
By the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ratified in 1868 — “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 in which they reside.”
Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER” and “NOT SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” He was NOT, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is NOT pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.”
Source: A Digest of the International Law of the United States
http://books.google.com/books?id=wdgxAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Plain as day, Jeff. BOTH Obama and Cruz are Constitutionally INELIGIBLE.
The courts have ruled otherwise:
Allen v. Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
Purpura & Moran v. Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
No court has ruled that Obama is ineligible. No state denied him access to their ballot in 2008 or in 2012. Every member of Congress voted to certify his electors, twice.
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.