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.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, I wasn't. You took my post, which was not 100% literal, just a tiny bit too literally.

Oh. You mean you're still as dumb as you were in the beginning.

Do you know what's a far bigger fallacy? Your bogus little appeal to authority, where you pose as an expert by throwing out terms like "argumentum ad populum."

What? You didn't know about it? I'm not an expert, you are just ignorant. The reason so many fallacies have Latin names is because stupid people have been using them since the Roman Empire, and given your penchant for the use of fallacies, I dares say this sorry state of affairs will continue indefinitely. Learn what you are talking about!

There, now you can be an "expert" too. Feel better?

As can be seen by the idiotic claims you've previously made, you're no expert.

Yes, the guy that doesn't even know about fallacies, is making another one. It's Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I refer to such stupid claims as putting forth David Ramsay as a "better" expert than William Rawle.

He is. I even made you walk back your claim that he was not a British trained loyalist.

As trying to use Thomas Jefferson's Virginia citizenship law, which was straight jus soli, in favor of your claim.

All you proved with that is your inability to read and/or comprehend.

As trying to quote James Madison, who said PLACE OF BIRTH was THE MOST CERTAIN CRITERION and WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES, as some argument in favor of your claim that it takes BOTH place of birth and parentage.

I believe Madison said that as well, right before the quote that gives you orgasms.

It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion;

As trying to claim that a law passed 13 years after a court case was a response to that court case.

None sequitur. Apart from the fact that you don't know when that law was enacted, (and no, the printing of that book does not accurately reflect when the law went into effect.) The law may very well have been a response to that court case. It certainly OVERTURNED that court case. Of that there can be no doubt. Do you know what else it did? It made your argument that "place" is the only criteria into a lie.

As saying that "natural born subject" is unrelated to "natural born citizen" when no one ever stated the two were unrelated, and it's clear that we replaced the word "subject" for the word "citizen" at the exact same time in history that we replaced "natural born subject" with "natural born citizen."

Straw man tactic. You misstate what I have said, and then criticize your own misstatement. Jeff, I Imagine you think you are an intelligent fellow, but in reality you are a pompous fool who is so enamored of his own brilliance that you believe your own opinions have the power to warp reality. You are a legend in your own mind.

I am an Electronics Engineer. This is the sort of thing *I* do for a living.

What do *YOU* do for a living? Something tells me you are in the kiddie pool when it comes to real intelligence.

[Jeff Winston]

What? You didn't know about it? I'm not an expert, you are just ignorant.

You're a freaking idiot.

Of course I know about logical fallacies. And yes, I know the Latin names for them as well.

You display your own breathtaking ignorance by assuming you know what you're talking about - in regard to me, and in regard to quite a few other things as well.

I am frankly shocked to hear that you are supposedly an electronics engineer. Not that I really believe it. It is unfathomable that a real electronics engineer could engage in so many fallacies while pretending to understand logic.

[DiogenesLamp]

That could ACCURATELY be said of every single thing you've ever written on this subject.

Only if the world existed inside your head. Seriously, it takes a rare combination of stupidity and chutzpah to create your own graph, then cite it as proof that you are right.

As for my graph, it is simply a SUMMARY of the HISTORICAL and ACCEPTED meaning of natural born citizen. You know, the one that is adhered to by every significant historical authority, and every conservative constitutional organization there is?

From the world according to Jeff. And there you go again, with that argumentum ad verecundiam/ argumentum ad populum. Do you have a NON-Fallacy argument?

So Jeffy makes up a graphic, and then points to it as evidence he is right. What a childish thing to do.

[Jeff Winston]

What do *YOU* do for a living? Something tells me you are in the kiddie pool when it comes to real intelligence.

And what I do for a living is none of your business. It's enough for you to know that I'm plenty bright enough not to be even faintly impressed by a functional idiot who pretends to be an electronic engineer.

[DiogenesLamp]

There was no need for a grandfather clause for Washington. All who were natural born subjects became natural born citizens automatically, with the treaty signed in 1783 although US courts held the date to be 4 July 1776.

Rogers, I normally ignore anything you write, but this statement just jumped out at me as being one of the stupidest things you've said.

George Washington was a natural born subject of His Majesty King George III. To argue that he was a "natural citizen" of a country which wouldn't exist for another 44 years is just asinine.

Care to rephrase that, or are you going to stick with the Time Traveling theory?

[DiogenesLamp]

WKA was found to be both a NBC and a 14th Amendment citizen, and those two classes were held to be identical.

Someone needs to tell Chief Justice Waite. He claims to have looked at the 14th amendment, and couldn't find that definition in there anywhere.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens

Your statement REQUIRES Justice Waite to be an idiot. And this is why I normally just skip over everything you write.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ah, yes. The sound of someone who refuses to be swayed by any facts or reality, now looking for the exit door.

The same response anyone would have when confronted with a lunatic.

[DiogenesLamp]

And what I do for a living is none of your business. It's enough for you to know that I'm plenty bright enough not to be even faintly impressed by a functional idiot who pretends to be an electronic engineer.

Well if I was employed at McDonalds, I'd be ashamed to admit it too.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're a freaking idiot.

My goodness! The brilliance of your comeback has taken my breath away!

Of course I know about logical fallacies. And yes, I know the Latin names for them as well.

Given what you post, I dare say you look up fallacies just to make sure your arguments conform to them.

You display your own breathtaking ignorance by assuming you know what you're talking about - in regard to me, and in regard to quite a few other things as well.

If there is one thing that you are an expert on, it's "breathtaking ignorance."

I am frankly shocked to hear that you are supposedly an electronics engineer. Not that I really believe it. It is unfathomable that a real electronics engineer could engage in so many fallacies while pretending to understand logic.

I am not promulgating fallacies. They just appear as such to you because you lack the wit to comprehend. That helpful link I posted for you ought to help you avoid this kind of misidentification in the future.

[DiogenesLamp]

Welcome to the party, highball. I have had some real difficulty myself getting birthers to respond to even simple yes or no questions. It's kind of like trying to get maple syrup out of an oak.

Yes, he keeps asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sorts of questions, then wonders why no-one feels like answering them. Frankly, it's a real mystery!

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, I created it.

Well duh.

And do you know why I made it look that way?

Because you wanted to point at it to prove yourself correct? Again, well duh.

So you're not even insulting my artwork. You're insulting birther artwork, because that's what I reproduced.

Stealing it AND making fun of it? You are such a childish person.

[DiogenesLamp]

Enlighten us with your wisdom.

You cannot be enlightened. As Reagan said:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so"

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but the original diagram simply and absolutely misrepresented the entire legal and historical understanding of what the term means.

That dubious distinction is your stock in trade.

It really amazes me, so many people claiming to value the Constitution. And they come on here and argue against Founding Fathers like James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.

Again you misstate. No one is arguing against Madison. What is being argued is that you are misrepresenting him, and overemphasizing his statement in support of your theory.

They ignore and revile the close associate of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.

You mean Rawle, whom you apparently didn't realize was a British Loyalist during the War, and who received his legal training in London. This is not revilement, it is merely stating the facts accurately. Also, the fact that he associated with Washington and Franklin does not establish that he was of the same mind as they on this topic.

But now that you brought it up, I am beginning to suspect that Rawle may be Patient Zero in this whole twisted mess. I suspect many of the subsequent legal authorities were the victim of his British Law interpretation of American citizenship. The error in his manuscript very likely influenced countless subsequent legal authorities in their own understanding.

They try to make the Constitution say something that no court case has ever said it meant in the entire history of the United States.

And this is just wrong. Justice Marshall clearly stated the principle in "The Venus", and Justice Waite clearly stated the exact same principle in "Minor v Happersett." You just don't like these cases, so you refuse to acknowledge them.

And those of us who've actually read the Constitution, and read the court cases, and read the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and read the historical quotes, and who are representing them 100% ACCURATELY... well, we're "dipsh!t trolls."

Those of you who read it with a lazy eye.

Yes, dipsh!t pretty much sums it up.

[DiogenesLamp]

I love the ad hominem attacks, by the way.

By launching the stupid ad hominem attacks, you broadcast loud and clear that you don't have a single substantive argument to make.

I'm going to quote you on that. You already regard yourself as proof of your own correctness, so when I quote you back at yourself telling yourself that your ad hominem attacks are the result of your not having a "single substantive argument to make", you will then BELIEVE YOURSELF!

Thanks for that. It will save much time in the future.

[DiogenesLamp]

Here I am, arguing that yes, TED CRUZ, one of the brightest and most promising conservatives out there, is eligible to be President of the United States.

Strict constructionists do not change the meaning of the law to favor them when it is convenient. Doing so is a characteristic of the Other side.

And since day one, you have argued an interpretation of that Constitution that has no significant authority in the whole of US history behind it. Past, present or future. Conservative or otherwise.

And here you simply repeat your previous false claims. Why do you gotta act like Bagdad Bob?

Justice Marshall, Justice Washington, Justice Waite, James Monroe, Possibly even James Madison, if "Publius" can be established as him. Justice Waite, Congressman Bingham, Senator Trumbull, Breckenridge Long, and h3ll, while we're at it:

George Will

Ann Coulter

John M. Yinger

Lawrence B. Solum

Notre Dame President Charles E Rice.

Alexander Porter Morse

Dr. David Ramsey

Ambassador Breckenridge Long

George D. Collins

John Greshack

Aristotle.

Arthur Hinman

There's this opinion in this Harvard Law book from 1929.

The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

And more still for which I have to hunt up the links again. Yeah, we got nothing.

[MamaTexan]

and is therefore deemed to be a “natural born”

Actually, they say: and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges OF natural born citizens.

It doesn't say they ARE natural born citizens

[MamaTexan]

You mean Rawle, whom you apparently didn't realize was a British Loyalist during the War, and who received his legal training in London.

I don't get his whole focus on Rawle. Kent came before him, and St. George Tucker came before that.

Tucker annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (of which his View of the Constitution is part), fought in the Revolutionary War, became a professor of William and Mary College and was appointed by Madison to the Virginia District Court.

Why would someone go all the way to Rawle?

Unless, of course, they aren't trying to find a conclusion to the facts so much as they're trying to find facts to fit a conclusion.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't get his whole focus on Rawle. Kent came before him, and St. George Tucker came before that.

I find his constant lauding of Rawle to be peculiar as well. The only reason for this of which I can think is that Rawle says what Jeff wants to hear.

Tucker annotated Blackstone's Commentaries (of which his View of the Constitution is part), fought in the Revolutionary War, became a professor of William and Mary College and was appointed by Madison to the Virginia District Court.

Unless i'm mistaken, i've seen statements from Tucker which can be regarded as supporting either side.

Why would someone go all the way to Rawle?

It's not just that he goes straight to Rawle, he simply ignores anyone else, including Supreme Court Justices.

Unless, of course, they aren't trying to find a conclusion to the facts so much as they're trying to find facts to fit a conclusion.

Bingo. I suspect Jeff has a personal reason for wanting "natural born" to mean anyone who was born here. He may have foreign parents who didn't naturalize before he was born, or perhaps someone close to him is in that situation. Rarely does one find such emotional attachment to an issue that has no personal bearing on themselves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually, they say: and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges OF natural born citizens.

It doesn't say they ARE natural born citizens

And that is a distinction which I noticed in his post as well. Saying something is similar is not saying it is the same. His quotes refer to "naturalizing" someone, which even THEIR side will concede is not "natural born." I cannot grasp why he thinks those quotes are relevant to discussion.

[Mr Rogers]

" Someone needs to tell Chief Justice Waite. He claims to have looked at the 14th amendment, and couldn't find that definition in there anywhere.

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens

Your statement REQUIRES Justice Waite to be an idiot."

No. It required the courts to examine English common law, because:

"There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."