Posted on 01/12/2016 10:09:44 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.
The Constitution provides that "No person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of President." The concept of "natural born" comes from the common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept's definition. On this subject, the common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England," while aliens are "such as are born out of it."
. . .
Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator's parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth.
Mentioned where, dumb dumb? What are you reading? You can't possibly be reading the natural born reference in Vettal (because it excludes those born outside and requires both parents to be citizens) or the natural born references in Blackstone's commentary on English common law, because they say exactly what I've said.
Lie.
The courts didn’t want to hear it about Obama and refused to recognize standing for anyone who challeged Obama’s eligibility.
Don’t count on them taking the same approach with Cruz.
His birth in Canada indicates he has THREE countries (The US via his mother, Canada his birthplace, and Cuba thru his father) having a legitimate claim on his allegiance from birth, whether he wanted it or not.
Our constitution and the rule of law must prevail. We should not yield to the same dark impulses of expediency and delusion that gave us the tyrannical sociopathic usurper demagogue Obama.
Choosing candidates who are creatures of the cult of personality has proved disastrous.
Natural Born is clearly defined in The Law of Nations. There was no reason to define it.
Funny Wapo
Mary, that’s like, your opinion man.
Except Cruz has no basis for such. None, Nada, zippo. I should have added that but I thought it was understood.
Which never was US Law.
“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” ;-)
But not in the Constitution, which makes yours a stupid argument, based on wishful thinking.
So the Architect of the 3 branches of Government should be ignored when he chaired a committee that took the verbiage out? Take a look at the members that were in the 4th Congress.
I don't buy that, because I don't buy the notion that Ted Cruz is the paladin of evangelical Christians, and thus, to say a word against him is to be persecuting Christians. I think that's a false argument.
It's about the Constitution. Cruzers constantly go on and on and on about how we need Ted Cruz because "he's the only one who cares about the Constitution," and then they turn around and want to sweep his potential ineligibility under the rug because he's their guy.
That's the same thing that Obama's cult followers did in 2008. I'm not interested in latching onto Ted Cruz in some kind of cult of personality.
Growing up, my friend was born in Turkey. Her dad was in the service. When she turned 18 (1978) she had to go to a Federal office and declare her US citizenship. BHO never did this.
Did Ted Cruz have to do this?
According to Wiki, he left Cuba before Batista fell. Ted's father was actually fighting on the side of Castro.
Well the understanding right now is that those “anchor babies” will be eligible to be President one day.
When these public debates come up, Christians and/or conservatives are still trying to discuss things with the left as though they just want to find the true and right answer.
They don’t!
And we have to act on that basis.
They are only interested in using whatever means necessary to establish secular humanism and make Biblical Christianity a footnote in history.
They only talk about rules when it suits them, and to hamstring Bible-believing Christians to play by them to their disadvantage, even when Christians aren’t breaking the rules, and otherwise they will break them themselves with impunity then accuse others of being the rule-breakers.
Planned Parenthood SELLING THE ORGANS OF BABIES THEY KILL but then shamelessly branding the people exposing them as the liars, hoaxers, and deceivers, and as inciting violence!
They think because Christianity has been mostly been erased in Europe and they are gaining ground here through simple unabashed lying, that it can and will be done here.
We can’t just let them do that.
That alone automatically makes your argument completely irrelevant.
Repeating it in a larger font won't make you any less wrong.
Trump has said all along that anchor babies are not citizens and too heat several times from Bill O'Reilly. How many lawyers can you find here that will declare anchor babies are citizens? That fallacy is not even based on a decision but on a footnote on a decision.
Cruz was born outside of the country, and thus isn't even saved by that bad ruling.
Anyway, here is an article that demonstrates how badly the court ruled in that case, ignoring all precedence and the direct wording of the people who penned the 14th amendment:
No, you're shockingly retarded here... and in other places but that's for another time.
I didn't say that our legal system didn't evolve out of common law.
I did say that we don't look to common law when our current laws are clear.
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.