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.

[Ladysforest]

Breitbart has an article up on this now. You think some of the people posting on here are ill-informed - just lay your eyes on that article! The comments are sad too.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Yes-Ted-Cruz-Likely-Eligible-to-be-President

First, “Likely”? Really?

Stuff like this: “The most likely meaning of the national-born clause is that you must have been an American citizen at birth, so that you would not have greater loyalty to some foreign nation.” The fricken AUTHOR wrote that.

So, admits he doesn’t know jack, but claims Cruz is eligible, “likely eligible”, because his mother was American. Never mind the fathers nationality, or that he was born in a different country. Makes me wonder if Cruz had been born in say, Germany, rather than over in Canada, would they treat this differently?

The comments are all loaded up with hyper emotional crap because we “shouldn’t hold against someone where they were born!” “Cruz is a good guy, his mother was American, that’s all I need!”

Very sad that such ignorance is embraced.

[Kansas58]

You are oblivious to reality
That makes you CRAZY!

You are also absolutely wrong that opinion does not matter. We are talking here about LEGAL OPINIONS and the fact that NOBODY with any authority, at law, agrees with you, or shares YOUR lonely opinion, does indeed matter.

You are suffering from a mental disorder. You wish notoriety, not success. You crave the “persecution” of those who you consider to be your cerebral “lessors” and it is very obvious to most observes -—

I know this because most observers ignore you.

DL, you are a cerebral narcissist.

That does not mean you ARE intellectually superior, it only means that your arrogance will never allow you to accept than anyone is your equal, intellectually.

This is why you MUST stake out ridiculous beliefs, because you would not be so proud of yourself, if anyone actually was as “smart” as you and agreed with you.

You are so “special” aren’t you?

[GBA]

That describes me as well.

I am accepted by all of the families that claim me and I was eventually treated as an equal by all, more or less, but legally, my title to them and their name and/or any other properties, depended upon a legal ruling to overcome the circumstances of my birth to make me one of them so that everyone and every entity agreed up my title and allegiance to that family and no others.

Adoption thus cleaned up the defects and clouds on my title, if you will. I needed someone else to make me one of them.

That's not the same for those naturally born family members in my clan.

They are full blooded family, no questions about it, no lawyers needed, but others are half with a step parent...so, claiming who is family and legal family allegiances, so to speak, gets complicated for all but those who are full blooded family from the same mom and the same dad.

Hmmm...I guess you're right. Citizenship is very similar conceptually with adoption. No wonder it's so easy for us to understand.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"Welcome to the party!"

Thanks! Great to see you, DL. I'm still catching up, but I've been following your exploits (like Rogers v Bellei vis a vis Cruz' own status) on this thread with great relish. Our would that be catchup. ;)

[HawkHogan]

Kansas, it doesn’t matter that almost every single legal authority, court, scholar, etc takes the opposite interpretation of “natural born citizen.”

They will always be right, no matter what, because they falsely claim they are students of the Constitution.

Mr. Rogers and Jeff Winston have filled this thread with rebuttals, and they immediately scorned as Obamabots or Axelrod minions. Anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of natural born citizen is their intellectual inferior. They are literally smarter than every legal scholar, lawyer, attorney general, and judge in the nation.

[JCBreckenridge]

Great argument - except Waite distinguishes between those born in America, and those who were not born in America.

[JCBreckenridge]

Hence my point. Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

“They were “naturalized” en masse by passage of the 14th amendment.”

No, they weren’t. And that’s my point. Slaves were retroactively made native citizens of the united states, and not naturalized citizens.

“Why aren’t the words “natural born” right next to the word “citizens” in the 14th amendment? Was ink too expensive?”

Burden remains on you to show that your definition can be found in the 14th. It is not. Ergo- it is safe to assume that the definition of citizen here is those born in the united states, or born in territory that would become part of the united states, slave or free, was a citizen of the United States, from the time of their birth.

[Nero Germanicus]

John Roberts is one Justice out of thousands in this country at every level of the judiciary and Obamacare is one issue out of hundreds that courts deal with.
Justice Roberts alone has voted against Obama’s policies many more times than he has voted for them.

[GBA]

History loves to have sport with those who ignore it's warnings.

They said people were so unhappy with Romney, that even if no one liked him, they disliked what obama has done even more, so Romney would win.

Yet, despite knowing exactly what obama is and is capable of after 4 years of first hand experience, a large number of loyal GOP voters stayed home. And Romney lost. Wasn't that fun?

You guys roll the GOPe so easily I almost admire you for it.

So...you say people who believe as I do are the fringe? Yeah, whatever. How many posts so far on this subject...and this started with even Fox news saying inelligible?

I wouldn't, but clearly you would take two effective Senators, Cruz and Rubio, out of the jobs they were elected to do and are widely love for and then run them in positions that many of your voters don't think they are Constitutionally eligible for.

The demonrats will LOVE you for it.

Me? You can trust me about this: I won't enjoy telling you "I told you so."

[DiogenesLamp]

Rawle was not just a close contact of two of our greatest Founders. He was a recognized early legal expert.

An Expert does not always know everything. As he was trained in British law, it is no great surprise to see him sticking with it. Often this has detrimental effects on points unique to American law. As Attorney General Black pointed out in 1859:

I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”

You're acting like a typical birther, in demanding the highest possible level of evidence for the historical interpretation of natural born citizen, and demanding NO evidence for the novel birther one. Just sayin'.

Apparently if he can't persuade Springfield Reformer, he must attack Springfield Reformer. Perhaps he is interested in evidence to support YOUR theory because it is YOUR theory that yields the ridiculous results of "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism", and doesn't preclude foreign manipulation of our Executive.

If someone in business tells you something that turns out to be false 5 times in a row, do you keep doing business with that person, or do you conclude that he either has no clue about his products or is an outright charlatan? Yet you willingly indulge those like DiogenesLamp who tell you provably false things 5 times in a row.

You suffer from the delusion that convincing yourself is the same thing as convincing someone else. Your arguments ring hollow to someone who doesn't share your blind belief. You haven't proven anything wrong five times in a row to anyone but your faithful believers. Objective people are not impressed.

There is a reason why I say that the two citizen parent claim is FALSE, and people like DiogenesLamp are twisting the Constitution. That's not an "ad hominem" attack. It is a factual description of what these people are doing.

This is funny! "My opinion is FACT! BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THIS!" Or as Mrs Slocombe used to say,

"And I am Unanimous in that!"

Jeff, you're good for some laughs buddy!

[butterdezillion]

Right now Obama’s HI BC has NO probative/legal value. It is not prima facie evidence. If it were prima facia evidence, it would be presumed to be accurate unless there was evidence to refute the claims (IOW, the burden of proof would be on those who say Obama was NOT born in Hawaii). But because the record is not legally valid, the burden of proof falls on OBAMA to prove that those are his real birth facts, not on somebody who would prove otherwise.

That is why Onaka’s letter of verification to Ken Bennett is so critical. By refusing to verify the birth facts claimed on the record they have, he disclosed that the record is not legally valid. He CAN’T legally presume that the birth really happened that way. That shifts the burden of proof. It is not we “birthers” who have to prove anything right now. Legally, it is Obama who has to prove his birth facts. And until he does, he HAS NO legally-determined birth facts - unless he’s got a valid BC from somewhere besides Hawaii.

The voters have no way of knowing where the guy was born. And Hawaii statute says that somebody like Obama (with a non-valid BC) can only even have their birth facts legally determined when the non-valid BC is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative official or body. IOW, somebody who can compel the production of all the relevant records.

You’re saying that the voters should be able to do what HI law says only a judicial or administrative official or body can do, within a legal proceeding.

I’m saying HI law should be obeyed, as should the Constitution (which clearly says that if the voters elect somebody who fails to qualify, that elected person cannot “act as President”). The way you’re saying it is supposed to be thus contradicts both the Constitution and HI statute.

[DiogenesLamp]

In this I agree with you. The reference in the US Constitution to the “Law of Nations” is generic, i.e. non specific to Vattel. There were several other writers on the Law of Nations, among them Grotius,Puffendorf and Locke.

[DiogenesLamp]

Come on. You’re not even trying now. None of that made the slightest sense.

Very little that he writes makes the slightest sense. Occasionally he will get something right.

[HawkHogan]

Wait Cruz is a GOPe favorite? I’m pretty sure the Beltway elite despise Cruz, given his conservative principles.

Cruz has unquestioned conservative values, through and through. Romney wasn’t even close.

Also, anyone who sat at home or voted for a third party candidate is directly responsible for Obama’s reelection. So as Obama pushes unconstitutional legislation that violates the 2nd Amendment, you should pat yourself on the back. You built that.

[editor-surveyor]

Wake up!

The Judiciary is polluted with globalist excrement at every level.

[DiogenesLamp]

Given up on attacking and now you are pleading? Bah.

I recall reading that Springfield Reformer has legal training. As the thread topic is whether or not Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" I would be interested in hearing Springfield Reformer's opinion of how Ted Cruz's birth circumstance differs greatly from that of Aldo Mario Bellei. (Rogers v Bellei)

I am of the opinion that being able to be stripped of citizenship (for failure to meet residency requirements) precludes someone from being a "natural born citizen." I argue that a "natural born citizen" cannot be held to any residency requirement because his citizenship is not operative on a law passed by Congress. (Citizenship act of 1934.) Natural citizens are not citizens by virtue of Congressional acts.

Care to wade in on this point Springfield Reformer?

[editor-surveyor]

Obama’s reelection was 100% fraud.

And at least 4 senate races too.

[DiogenesLamp]

You say that being a dual citizen is a Constitutional bar to being President of the United States. That seems like absolute nonsense to me, since our third President, Thomas Jefferson, actually WAS a dual citizen WHILE HE OCCUPIED THE OFFICE.

It is a mystery why you regard this as persuasive. It is axiomatic that the United States only recognizes it's own citizenship law. In a dispute with foreign law, US law prevails. Why do you even bring this up? It's befuddling.

It is akin to making an issue over the fact that Ireland, Italy and Israel all extend automatic citizenship to the children of their expats. It provokes a great big SO?

[DiogenesLamp]

So let's explore your theory. By your theory, it matters, a great deal, if some other country says that my child, born here in America, is a citizen of theirs. According to your theory, if that other country extends citizenship to them, and makes them BORN their citizen, then that makes them ineligible to OUR Presidency. Right?

No Jeff, that is a misstatement of your opponents theory. If you cannot even manage to grasp their theory correctly, how can you expect to critique it?

US Citizenship law overrides other nation's citizenship laws within this country. That another nation extends the offer is irrelevant. Only if one of our citizens Accepts the offer does it make an impact on their citizenship. That condition falls under this and subsequent legislation.

http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/Patr/US/ExpatriationAct.html

[Natufian]

“Right now Obama’s HI BC has NO probative/legal value. It is not prima facie evidence. If it were prima facia evidence, it would be presumed to be accurate unless there was evidence to refute the claims (IOW, the burden of proof would be on those who say Obama was NOT born in Hawaii). But because the record is not legally valid, the burden of proof falls on OBAMA to prove that those are his real birth facts, not on somebody who would prove otherwise.”

The only problems I see with this are:

Every court and every state that has looked into this issue believes that the BC and Hawaii’s verifications DO have both probative and legal value.

They ALL treat them as prima facie evidence.

Because they treat it as prima facie evidence, it IS presumed to be accurate in the absence of contrary evidence.

IOW, legally the burden of proof IS on those who say Obama was not born in Hawaii.

Your analysis of Hawaii’s verifications is marginal (and that’s being generous). Virtually everyone else, especially those in the legislative and judicial branches across the country, see it completely differently.