Fox News Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible To Be POTUS Due To Birth In Canada [American Mother]

birtherreport.com/You Tube ^ | March 9, 2013 | BirtherReportDotCom

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.

[HawkHogan]

Yet, every legal and Constitutional scholar in the land, minus a handful of birthers, seems to agree with the judges interpretation of natural born citizen.

Hasn’t Mr. Robinson banned the Alex Jones nonsense? Isn’t it time for a ban of the birther nonsense. Haven’t the comment sections for Rush and Levin enacted similar bans?

The conspiracy stuff gets old. Mr. Rogers hit the nail on the head.

[HawkHogan]

How old are you MHGinTN? n00b? You’re literally 10 years late on that one. Did you hear one of your children say Noob to someone on their Xbox Live headset? Do you think it makes you sound cool or hip?

“In other words, Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term). The Supreme Court has held and lower courts affirmed that natural-born citizen refers to anyone born in the United States.”

Mr. Rogers and Jeff have already debunked your nonsense based on that case.

Please see the quote above. Many articles have already been written debunking the Minor v Happersett nonsense as well.

[Verginius Rufus]

Alexander Hamilton was one of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention who was eligible to run for President because of the clause about those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. James Wilson and Robert Morris were other foreign-born delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

[Verginius Rufus]

At least three delegates to the Constitutional Convention (Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris, and James Wilson) were not born in the US but were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. They did not need to be naturalized because they had been born British subjects and were living in the US at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

[DiogenesLamp]

I understand, and I have read DL's earlier post. His points are not new.

They have yet to sink in. When you grasp them, you will see them in a new light.

Here we have a man who was VERY close to both Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. He met with them in Franklin's home, regularly, just prior to the Constitutional Convention.

Unless you are arguing that Washington and Franklin's understanding of the topic sunk in to Rawle by Osmosis, then his proximity to them is irrelevant. As I mentioned before, Judas kept excellent company, yet still he did not learn anything.

If birthers had an equally strong statement, from an equally strong authority, that would allow them NOT to prevail, but just to PULL EVEN.

You are looking at this wrong. The correct way to look at it is if YOUR theory were correct, it ought to be unassailable. There ought to be NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for any competing theory. The fact that there *IS* so much evidence for a competing theory demonstrates your understanding was NOT UNIVERSAL.

You see, ANY contrary evidence violates your theory. (That everyone knew the same interpretation.)

Yeah, but Ben Franklin said he liked Vattel.

So? I like cream cheese. It doesn't mean I read the packet for the definition of natural born citizen.

So you argue that Rawle got his understanding from Osmosis, but Franklin couldn't get his understanding from reading?

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.

Or being a close personal friend with Charles Dumas, the Publisher?

They even had a secret code which relied on Vattels book as it's key.

Do you suppose Franklin read any of it while he was using it as a code book?

Washington Too? That book Washington never returned was Vattel's "Law of Nations" by the way.

I'll answer DL's nonsense in the thread you mentioned in another post.

I have no doubt you will reply, but answer? I doubt it.

[Ladysforest]

Basically, the people who reside in a land are it’s citizens. Citizenship implies that everybody has access to the same rights. They were subjects of England, citizens in a colony.

I used the word “States”, for which I denounce myself.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why does the 14th mention ‘naturalized citizen’ and draws a distinction between them and ‘citizens’?

Because they aren't the same thing. Former slaves were not "naturalized" in the conventional sense. They were "naturalized" en masse by passage of the 14th amendment.

Now a question for you. Why aren't the words "natural born" right next to the word "citizens" in the 14th amendment? Was ink too expensive?

[DiogenesLamp]

This is all just speculation. What does native mean? Born in the United States.

That is what the word "native" means NOW. In the past, it didn't have the same meaning. Justice Waite (Minor v Happersett) explains what "native" meant in 1875.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

What evidence is there for a distinction drawn that you are drawing here? Absolutely none.

There is plenty of evidence for a distinction being drawn. Claiming there is none is either ignorant or dishonest.

[MHGinTN]

I am 67, and it is time to tell you the facts, n00b: Sorry, your Alinsky ridicule tactics credit card is over drawn. Your credibility is therefore cancelled.

And for your n00bie information, the term as spelled is an insult. If spelled as 'NooB' or noob, that would be an affirmation of fellowship as a freep accepted. Based upon your posting so far, it is not likely you will reach freperhood anytime soon. But we can hold out hope for you anyway, because hope springs eternal.

[Verginius Rufus]

If they were grandfathering in NB Subjects...

New Brunswick was separated from Nova Scotia only in 1784, just three years before the Constitutional Convention, and it was full of Loyalists. So I don't think they were worried about New Brunswick Subjects trying to become President of the United States.

[rxsid]

The level of ignorance on this issue is pretty stunning. Especially when it comes from those alleged to be champions of the Constitution.

Sen. Ted Cruz is a "citizen" at birth because of the particular law created by Congress at the time.

If that particular statue didn't exist at the time, he wouldn't even be a "citizen."

The Constitution gives Congress the power of "naturalization."

Ted Cruz is a "naturalized" citizen at birth. (Because of the Congressional statue).

He's obviously not a "natural born Citizen."

This isn't rocket science here.

[Mr Rogers]

“Minor is quite clear that to be natural born, or a native, one must have two citizen parents. “

Here is what it actually said. You will note they specifically refused to explore the limits of the meaning of NBC, since it was irrelevant to the case:

“Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by “the people of the United States,” [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of “the United States of America,” entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

to repeat: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. “

E-S lives in a Robert Ludlum novel, but I post it for any lurkers who want to know the truth about what Minor said - and did NOT say.

[Nero Germanicus]

Can you show me an Obama eligibility lawsuit where Minor was cited successfully?
Here’s one that relied on US v Wong Kim Ark:
Ankeny v Daniels, Indiana A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are ‘natural born citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

The “Daniels” who defended Obama’s eligibility in Ankeny v Daniels is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana and President George W. Bush’s Director of Management and Budget.

[Verginius Rufus]

Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia and lived there most of his life, apart from his years as US Minister to France or when he was serving in Congress or as Vice President when Philadelphia was the capital. I had never heard of his being given French citizenship before reading this thread but he must have regarded it as a token of esteem from the French and not something that affected his American citizenship.

If he was a dual citizen, it was as an American citizen and as a citizen of Virginia.

Winston Churchill's mother was an American. When he was invited to give a speech to Congress he remarked that if his father had been an American instead of his mother, he might have gotten there on his own. He was later given honorary US citizenship. Jefferson's French citizenship should probably be seen in the same light.

[HawkHogan]

Well a word of advice from a young’n. When you use a term that was popular ten years ago, you give away your age. It’s a desperate attempt to sound relevant.

I wish Glenn Beck never discussed Saul Alinsky. These “Alinsky tactics” posts are growing tiresome.

Ironically, the ones using the Alinsky tactics are the ones calling fellow conservatives traitors and Axelrod minions, but I digress.

[little jeremiah]

I don’t twit.

You claim that it’s your first account here.

Big deal, anyone can lie and many do.

If you really believed what you said up the thread, you wouldn’t be ON this thread. It’s clear as glass that you are here to disrupt, attack “birthers” in order to support a non-NBC as president. Everyone sees what you’re doing.

What you said up thread:

---

That’s why I think we need to focus on the easy criticisms of Obama. Obamacare being the focal point.

---

So why aren’t you doing just that? You’re so obvious you’re embarrassing.

[Mr Rogers]

I was using NB as an abbreviation for natural born. It was used with both subjects (NBS) and citizens (NBC).

[little jeremiah]

Makes one wonder which team they play for.

---

There are only two possilbilities. One, the Zero team. Two, the GOP elite team.

[little jeremiah]

It does make you wonder. Instead of focusing on defunding Obamacare, some in this thread would rather play pattycake with the mythical two parent requirement.

---

So, dipwad, why are you here instead of doing the important work you say others should be doing? You really think you’re fooling anyone? Or are you paid by the number of replies you make?

[little jeremiah]

Interesting that this thread has them on red siren alert all hands on deck.

Very interesting.