Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
As far as I know, he wasn't. If I recall, his father wasn't a citizen until 2005, well beyond the point that derivation would have been able to play a part in his son's citizenship.
There is nothing in Cruz's citizenship to keep him from holding any public office except the President or VP. Having admired his knowledge of the Founder's intent and having voted for him twice, I must say I'm disappointed he has made such a statement.
Congressional studies are NOT the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the U. S. Constitution.
Natural Born means BOTH parents were U.S. Citizens, not just one of them.
Obama was born God-Knows-Where, and his father was NOT a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, which makes him ineligible, but the Powers that put this Usurper in the White Hut are not bound by Law, anyway, nor are they bound by the U.S. Constitution. Their power keeps Congress, the USSC, and citizenry itself from pursuing the issue of an Illegal POTUS, plus the threat of inner-city tribal parasite revolt if he's Outed is a threat that none want to confront by kicking his sorry ass off to prison for perpetrating one of the greatest Frauds in World History.
does not matter , Obama is staying,true story
IMO Obama has a better claim to NBC status than Cruz. There are three possible factors to consider: mother’s citizenship status, father’s citizenship status, place of birth.
Obams meets two of three, Cruz one of three.
An interesting take. I hope that is his intent. He recently spent time in New Hampshire, I have some reservations.
Could be. Like I said, the Cruz situation is a bit less obvious then the out and out lie that is "Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro" or who knows what. Frank Marshall's revenge on Whitey, maybe....
Recall that people here used to think Rubio was God.
I'm still unconvinced that Cruz is not simply a more polished version of that.
Palin is a different story.
Soetoro should have been disqualified the day he filed. That he wasn't may turn in to the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution, and in 30 years we end up with a ranting Hispanic demagogue in the office, presiding over a decrepit Banana Republic.
No, that's not what he said.
He said that because he is a US citizen by birth, and not by naturalization, he is a legally and Constitutionally a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.
Throughout our entire national history, "natural born citizen" has basically meant "citizen by birth." That's what the term has ALWAYS meant to pretty much EVERYBODY, until about 4 years ago, when someone came along and tried to change the definition because they didn't like Obama, and you bought into it, because YOU didn't like Obama.
There were those of us whose love of our Constitution was greater than our dislike of Obama, who tried to tell you, but you wouldn't listen, because your dislike of Obama was greater than your love of the Constitution.
Why is he saying this? He’s not stupid.
Exactly. He's saying this because he's not stupid.
Excuse me I stated “BUT he didn’t say that to mean he was ‘ineligible’”. I meant to say ‘eligible’.
With tens of millions of impeccably natural-born citizens being anti-American, this strategy doesn't seem to be very successful. I would not be very surprised if a greater percentage of naturalized citizens have a strong attachment to America than native-born.
I'm not saying this wasn't their intent, just that it doesn't work anymore.
There are millions of people who do meet all the requirements. No need to make exceptions
AGREED!
5.56mm
Quote for truth. Just what have the Birthers been up to? Do they think they can win this fight on the internet?
For Cripe's sake, their inability to get anything done sets the stage for it happening again.
As I said to you, a person who is a citizen "at" the time of birth is not a person who becomes a citizen "subsequent" to the time of birth.
A person who becomes a citizen "subsequent" to the time of birth is a "naturalized citizen". A person who is a citizen at the time of birth is "natural born".
Read section A of 1401. Then read section H.
Most of us are covered under Section A as natural born. Others such as Cruz are covered under Section H.
Now, as I told another poster, if you want to claim that USC 1401 is unconstitutional, then have at it. BUT USC 1401 in and of itself makes Cruz an NBC.
Yes, it is, Sven.
The Certificate of Citizenship you link to is merely a recognition of that automatic citizenship, and a proof of that citizenship. It even says right on the application for that certificate:
To determine if you were born a U.S. citizen, USCIS must look at the law that was in effect at the time of your birth.
USC 1401 says that Cruz is “natural born”.
Show me exactly where in the language of 8 USC 1401 where the specific term ‘natural born’ is used. I await your response. You are free to cut and past it if you like.
Your issue is with the law, not me.
Yes I am bowing out of this debate for now, sorry.
Originally it seemed to me (H) was evidence for Cruz. However I was reading part of that requirement wrong, I think?
A person born before, May 24, 1934.
Now I’m thinking that (H) doesn’t apply, because I don’t believe Cruz was born before May 24, 1934?
And I am frankly confused by (G).
So I’m going back to neutral on this for now.
Do however carry on.
As far as I’m concerned this just moves me back to the middle.
:D
We are no doubt about to be spammed with a lengthy pre-written ramble of twisted data meant to confuse average readers. This being Freerepublic. most of us will be laughing while trying to decide if his foolishness is worth posting rebuttal for.
This Texan would gladly vote for him except for the fact that he is NOT eligible.
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.