Posted on 02/10/2014 3:54:07 PM PST by iowamark
There wasn't when he left Cuba. I believe Cruz senior didn't become a U.S. citizen until after his son was born.
I know it’s hard to follow along and keep track of what people say but I began this conversation explaining that I want Cruz to be president. I think the issues surrounding eligibility need to be addressed and soon and fully.
You can blather all you want with the courage of the keyboard but please pick the right target, it might add a shred to your credibility.
The law is murky because the constitution does not define a natural born citizen. Several, including the most recent study says foreign born children must be born of American citizens to be considered natural born citizens. Cruz’s father was Cuban. His mother was American. The requirement is in the plural, “parents” so the matter needs to be adjudicated and soon. Waiting and hoping that the issue will go away invites an October surprise.
Most people don't think there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Under the rules in place at the time Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. What is there to adjudicate?
You can blather all you want with the courage of the keyboard but please pick the right target, it might add a shred to your credibility.
I'm happy with my credibility. Not so sure about your's though.
The Constitution identifies two classes of citizen: natural born and naturalized. If you're not one then you're the other. Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under the laws in place at the time.
Several, including the most recent study says foreign born children must be born of American citizens to be considered natural born citizens.
I've seen enough birther threads to be familiar with all the arguments. But it's all opinion. The Constitution is clear. The law is clear. Ted Cruz's status as a natural born citizen is clear.
Cruz’s father was Cuban. His mother was American. The requirement is in the plural, “parents” so the matter needs to be adjudicated and soon.
8 U.S. Code § 1401 outlines who are citizens and nationals at birth. Section G states that such people include, "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years..." That was the law in place when Cruz was born. Again, nothing to adjudicate.
Waiting and hoping that the issue will go away invites an October surprise.
There will be no October surprise. Taking after Cruz on the subject of citizenship would only legitimize those who questioned Obama's. The Democrats won't do that, and as I said before they don't need to. People calling themselves Conservatives will do it for them.
Okay. I’ll try to use small words. The study of the law says BOTH parents need to be citizens if the child is born outside the US. Cruz’s dad was a Cuban when Cruz was born in Canada.
I can explain it for you, I can’t understand it for you.
To my thinking the words of the Constitution and the Constitution cannot be adjudicated by the courts. Government and private actions can be adjudicated as regards the Constitution’s limits. It is a travesty against the Founder’s known declarations as to eligibility for POTUSA. I see no resolution except by amending the Constitution which the Founders were wise enough to allow for. The courts top to bottom cannot change the words of the Founders.
I agree but adjudicating the language if any law from traffic statutes to the constitution, is the role of the courts. It went off the rails when the the courts re-interpreted the general welfare clause and the commerse clause to allow FDR to do pretty much anything he wanted. I’ve been an optimist my whole life but I don’t think I can maintain that attitude through another democrat administration.
Thank you, and sorry for not reading all of your comments.
Why thank you for that obnoxious and incredibly patronizing response. But I'll stick with what the law actually says if that's OK with you.
I’ve explained it four times already. You displayed the kind of density that warranted my response. The law is not clear which is why I stated my opinion that the matter had better be adjudicated early (as in now) to prevent an October surprise. Remember the Dodd Frank engineered collapse of Freddie and Fannie? That’s the kind of issue we face if we simply trust the democrats to be ladies and gentlemen.
If failure to agree with your opinion equals density then there are a lot of dense people out there. And you're convinced we're all wrong.
The law is not clear which is why I stated my opinion that the matter had better be adjudicated early (as in now) to prevent an October surprise
The law is very clear. Read it. Read the legislation, that implemented it. It's there in black and white: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (5) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessioins for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person..."
Where is the ambiguity in that that seems to have you so confused?
Again, black and white. Cruz is a natural born citizen.
I will go one further thought. Adjudicating law from traffic statutes to the Constitution is not the same as making a law or a Constitution. There are people who like to make laws which they can enforce as their heart desires.
Let them make their point then. And your point is?
I would love to see them bring the birth right issue to the front. Then we could really have a discussion about where exactly Obastard was born, since all of his documents were proven to be false and fakes. That alone is fraud, and is a felony, which results in the elimination of ALL his laws since he was never a ligit president.
BTW, the country is..the United Sates, of America. America is a continent...three parts thereof.
They will be happy to throw everything against the wall to see what sticks. It’ll be the end of obamas second term so any point about his eligibility will be very moot. There will be no downside for the democrats, none.
Raising the issue in October, even if it later is proven to be without merit, will cause enough clamor to hand the election to the democrats. I can’t be the only one who remembers the Dodd/Frank engineered mortgage crisis in September of 2008 and McCain’s idiotic suspension of hs campaign. This is the street tactic we will be facing if Cruz doesn’t put ANY question regarding his eligibility to rest well in advance of 2016.
I know. That’s who we’re up against. That’s why I’m railing about getting this resolved clearly and definitively now.
I give up. It’s pointless to once again and point out what we’re up against. This issue can be raised in october of 2016. It wont matter if it has no merit, it’ll influence the election just like McCain’s boneheaded “suspension” of his campaign in september of 2008.
I know what we’re up against, it’s too bad you can’t see the criminals we face. These tactics have worked before and, without aggressive counter-measures, they will again hand the election to the democrats. This is a street fight, not an Olympic boxing match.
The Democrats won't touch it. They won't have to. If the issue is raised against Senator Cruz, either now or in October 2016, then it'll be by people like you.
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.