Man up and stop being to offended by words.
Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
BTW toad, the only time I’ve been viciously attacked and called a troll here was when, you guessed it, criticizing McCain!
Well he is a citizen and he was born. Those are facts. However, he was born, by his own admission, in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. A Natural Born Citizen is one who was born on American soil and whose parents were both American citizens.
Until recently, Sen. Cruz held dual citizenship in both Canada and America. All of these things are matters of public record, by the way. And, unfortunately, having a Cuban father and being born in Canada does not equal a Natural Born Citizen according to the Constitution.
That's not DustyMoment saying it, that's the Constitution and the Founding Fathers saying it. However, if you want to live in a nation of men and NOT law, as zero is making America, then you are correct - Cruz is eligible to be POTUS. For that matter, as a nation of men, we can decide that Prince George can be POTUS when he gets old enough. Because that's how nations that live by the rule of men function.
Sorry, I meant to respond to this in my previous post. I'm not attacking Cruz, I'm simply posting a factual essay that clearly defines the term Natural Born Citizen.
That's not an attack. I like Cruz and will support him for any elected position he is legally entitled to hold. But, you asked why I was attacking him when ZeroCare and amnesty are on the table again. I didn't post the article to which we all responded. I posted an essay that is intended to clarify a legal term that has been muddied and confused. So, if you want to know why I posted the essay on a thread posted by someone else when, as you say, ZeroCare and amnesty are on the table again (amnesty having never been taken off the table, btw), then you should ask that of the original poster, not me.
Dr. Néstor García Iturbe (*) in his article "Cuba – Estados Unidos - Kennedy," written 49 years ago and published October 19, 2012, presents a long excerpt from the French journalist’s interview with Kennedy, in which the President acknowledges U.S. responsibility for the Batista dictatorship and the humiliating economic colonization of Cuba in the 1950’s."I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime.
"I approved of the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins.
"In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear." http://www.granma.cu/ingles/international-i/30may-Kennedy.html
You presume too much. Your odd rantings are the “rule of DustyMoment” and NOTHING else!
There is NO qualified legal authority, in HISTORY, who supported your weird interpretation of the “law”.
You are wrong.
You are WRONG!
You are on the right track. One of the reasons that the Founding Fathers inserted the NBC clause is that they wanted the POTUS to be someone who didn't have divided loyalties. Until recently, Cruz held dual citizenship in both the US and Canada. He renounced his Canadian citizenship (IMO) to lay the foundation for a POTUS run. And, as you quoted, he doesn't meet the NBC requirement.
But, then again, neither does the Kenyan muslim communist.
Rafael Cruz Sr renounced his Cuban citizenship when he took Canadian citizenship as was required of all Canadians at that time that they not have dual citizenship. He followed suit when he renounced his Canadian citizenship on taking US citizenship.
Get the facts right.
“more elaborate ‘natural born citizen’. “
That’s the whole entire point: There is no elaborate ‘natural born citizen’.
A person is either citizen by birth or not. There is no ‘natural law’. Congress gets to state who is and who is not a citizen by birth as that subject is not specifically called out in the Constitution and the phrase “born in” also needed support, such as visiting mothers to foreign countries. I have yet to get an answer from anyone on that question. Congress also codifies what is free speech and how is it protected and not protected, although the Constitution claims speech is protected.
There are always someone that wants to twist words, mince words, and take words completely out of context and that is where our laws, hopefully, strengthen the words of the Constitution, as it does with 1401 that states exactly who is considered a natural born citizen and who must naturalize.
Nowhere in any law in any place is there another mention of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’. It simply does not exist. The founders meant they did not want an immigrant to be President. They never intended any elaborate rules behind their words.
“No Law is required to make one a Natural Born Citizen.”
There is nothing that states when you are natural born. Find it and show it to us. There is no such thing as ‘natural law’. Find that. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
A conservative on Free Republic supports conservatives who are attempting to stop illegal amnesty and obamacare. They do not undermine them or distract them.
Worry about his eligibility in about 2015 if he announces he’s running.
“He is perfectly eligible to be POTUS and he is an honorable man.”
That’s the trolls lashing out. Every argument they make is either unsubstantiated or an outright lie. Typical liberal thinking process: If they can’t make people believe their BS then they believe you should run from them. Typical bullies: Either they try to force you to do something or they believe you should run from them.
I prefer to punch them in the nose and kick their ass!
Man up and stop being to offended by words.
:: Worry about his eligibility in about 2015 if he announces he’s running ::
Truer words...and all that. Thanks xzins.
Well, the Supreme Court and the British Parliament will be surprised to hear that.
And, I'm sorry you don't like how the law is written. It's not my interpretation, it is the interpretation of a number of legal and Constitutional scholars.
But, the law is a funny thing. We like the laws that go our way but the laws that don't support our views are either bad laws or misinterpreted. And that, my FRiend, is the nature of human beings.
Right now, I don't have a dog in this fight so I don't really care. If you think Cruz is eligible to be POTUS, go for it. That's your belief and you are entitled to it. However, after reading and researching the whole NBC issue, I hold a different opinion based on what the law says. So, this boils down to DustyMoment liking America as a nation of laws and, apparently, Kansas58 liking America as a nation of men. If we drop all standards and requirements, Osama bin Laden could have been POTUS if the SEALs hadn't taken him out. Where do we draw the line? Cruz good because we like him, even though he was born in Canada of a Cuban father and McCain bad because he was born in Panama of an American father? Where is the reference line so that we clearly know who meets the eligibility requirement and who doesn't? Right now, all we're doing is moving the goalposts to accommodate the guy we like.
I, too, would like to see the codified book of Natural Law that keeps getting cited.
And being a born citizen is what law and logic affirm as natural born....as well as the naturalization law of 1793.
Funny, I hold Conservatives in higher esteem, not you so much.
Libs call names when they can't defend an argument, you have proved that.
Ummmm, perhaps you've never read the Declaration of Independence?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Just words, I'm sure they didn't really men that when it is convenient to do so....
Sorry, Ron, you did not show that book.
And where is your legal argument to the contrary?
Hell, kid, you got offended when I called SOMEONE else a name! Jeez. You’re as thin-skinned as any liberal.
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.