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.

[Vermont Lt]

McCain was born to a US serviceman on duty at a foriegn station. In that case he is natural born. There was a law past several years ago dealing with that specific issue—which was more of a concern when the US took on an empire status by deploying our troops all over the world. When we minded our own business and kept to our own land this was not a problem. Seems like a good solution to work towards.

[Jeff Winston]

Your argument is just nonsense.

A natural born citizen has a legal status, a naturalized citizen has a legal status, a 14th amendment citizen has legal status, but strictly speaking dual citizens do not in the same sense. Our own government admits to that, and says while it’s not officially recognized it is tolerated.

So tell me.

Billy and Bob live in Peoria. Both were born in Peoria. Billy is a US citizen. Bob is a US citizen. Billy has no other citizenship. Bob had an Hessian grandmother, and the government of Hessia says that any grandchild of a Hessian is a Hessian natural born citizen.

So Billy is not a dual citizen, but Bob is.

You say that Bob, as a "dual citizen," has "no legal status." What does this mean? Does this mean he can't get a driver's license? How is Bob's US citizenship any different from Billy's?

Ah, you say. But Bob can't run for President. Why not? Where is the rule that says he can't? You can produce no such rule, because it doesn't exist.

But you say his dual citizenship stops him, because he "has no legal status." That's nonsense. THERE IS NO LAW ANYWHERE ON THE BOOKS IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES LEGAL SYSTEM THAT SPECIFIES THAT BOB'S US CITIZENSHIP IS IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT FROM BILLY'S, OR THAT HE IS TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN ANY WAY.

In fact, as far as the US government is concerned, it's his Hessian citizenship that might as well not exist.

So your argument is completely, absolutely, totally absurd. But you will never give up the absurd argument, because you like it.

And that's what it is to be a birther.

[RegulatorCountry]

Residents of the colonies through the course of the Revolution, who had not fought for or aided England in warring against the Patriot cause, ipso facto became the original citizens. There was no “naturalized” because these were The People of a new political entity formed out of a previous political entity.

I've encountered your peculiar insistence that the United States was somehow just a continuance of English rule many times over the past four going on five years, and this has got to be the strangest by far. “Naturalization” had nothing to do with the so-called “grandfather clause.” The Founders grandfathered themselves and their generation because they could not be natural born. They could not be natural born because the country didn't exist when they were born, your strained assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Springfield Reformer]

Sorry. My bad. I assumed you were perfectly capable of googling it for yourself. However, as I am too lazy and too preoccupied with other more important tasks to help you out, I leave you to your own devices anyway. Enjoy the nirvana.

Peace,

SR

[Vermont Lt]

McCain was born to a US serviceman on duty at a foriegn station. In that case he is natural born. There was a law past several years ago dealing with that specific issue—which was more of a concern when the US took on an empire status by deploying our troops all over the world. When we minded our own business and kept to our own land this was not a problem. Seems like a good solution to work towards.

[Jeff Winston]

Let me get one thing straight. I do not have to answer TO YOU in any way shape of form.

I never asked you to answer to me.

I have asked you whether you would answer TO REALITY.

I have asked you whether you would answer TO EVIDENCE.

I DO NOT have to justify my opinions any further to you, as I have already provided sources to substantiate my position.

Well, one of the first things you provided was a claim that Vattel was the source of the phrase "law of nations" in our Constitution. I asked whether you would change that opinion if I provided conclusive evidence that there is a far, far better candidate for where that phrase came from.

You have steadfastly and absolutely refused to answer that you would be swayed by reasonable evidence, if I presented it.

In doing so, you have as much as admitted that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON EARTH THAT WOULD SWAY YOU FROM WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.

And by so doing, you have given some useful information to others reading this thread.

You have very strongly indicated that evidence means nothing to you. Only your OPINION matters, and if given a choice between your opinion and REALITY, you will take your personal opinion.

So you have very clearly told everyone following this thread that if it is REALITY they are interested in, then they can safely ignore any and all posts by you.

Because you've made it clear that you aren't dealing in reality. You're just here to claim whatever fantasy takes your fancy.

Everything everyone has provided as evidence has been conveniently ignored BY YOU

Really? I think if you would go back and read what I've posted, you would see that that statement is completely false.

Of course, this is completely in line with the fact that you've shown yourself to be a person who prefers fantasy to reality. So you are free to fantasize that "I've ignored all the evidence." I'm sure it will make you feel better to believe that.

Your behavior has been arrogant and belittling, you have substantiated NOTHING, and added nothing positive whatsoever to the conversation.

I asked you if I provided conclusive evidence of all of those points, would you go with the evidence? You have adamantly refused to listen to any evidence. I'm not sure why I or anyone else should respect someone for whom evidence and reality mean... absolutely nothing.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, but you are doing everything possible to twist it.

Interpreting it your way yields twisted results. Interpreting it correctly does not yield twisted results. The correct interpretation precludes Anchor babies, Birth tourism, explains the many thousands of Loyalists who remained British, and explains why slaves and indians were not citizens (though born here) until laws were passed making them so.

[DiogenesLamp]

Birthers who claim otherwise are spitting in the face of William Rawle and the Founders and Framers that he was friends with. And it is time that real Patriots stopped tolerating this nonsense.

No, we are just pointing out that a Lawyer Heavily trained in BRITISH law, may not be the best authority for arguing what is the meaning of UNIQUE portions of AMERICAN law. We threw off British legal thinking as regards to subjectship. The law of the time was "Perpetual Allegiance."

We stabbed a dagger right through the heart of British Subject law. We could never be independent had we adhered to it.

[RegulatorCountry]

... but to the fictional Hessian government, it's the US citizenship that does not exist or is certainly viewed as being of secondary importance. Rights and obligations appertain.

Can you envision any problems that might arise, from a President who is legally beholden to another nation? Will his actions be in the best interests of this nation, or of Hessia? You can't say you know the answer to that question, and neither could the Founders. It wa deemed best to disallow the possibility of such a potential conflict of interest in a President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

As far as the all-caps yelling section of your reply, please return to the words of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett to familiarize yourself with the answer to your question.

[DiogenesLamp]

I cannot imagine a natural born citizen being stripped of his citizenship for failing to meet residency requirements. Can you?

Yes. It's not hard.

All you have to do is accept that citizenship in the United States was defined a good deal like it was in our mother country, England, and that "natural born citizen" really means "citizen at or by birth."

Let us ponder for a moment, what you are saying. If you understood what I said correctly, you are telling me that a natural born citizen can lose his citizenship merely by failing to live in the United States. Does this correctly represent your opinion?

I'll reiterate for clarity. You are saying that a "natural born citizen" can lose their citizenship by failing to reside inside the United States.

Correct me if I am misstating your opinion.

[Ladysforest]

Really? THIS crap is your argument?

And a train leaves at 4:42 but travels just 2 seconds in the wrong direction while the engineer is on his cell phone. How long until another country declares the train to be it’s property even though a war would ensue?

See, it’s like that with you.

[DiogenesLamp]

IMO your argument has de facto won since Obama took office and the stricter definition is never going to be enforced. But I’m in no way convinced that that’s what the framers meant and it is disingenuous to simply pretend that the stricter definition didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was written.

It occurred to me yesterday that what people such as Jeff Winston advocate is the most LIBERAL possible interpretation of the meaning, while what people such as myself advocate the most CONSERVATIVE possible interpretation of the meaning.

Jeff's standard allows anchor babies, birth tourism, fails to explain why Indians and Slaves were barred from citizenship, and also fails to explain the Children of British loyalists after the Revolutionary war. (that they were British, not American. In those days you didn't get to chose your allegiance. )

The Conservative Standard contains none of those paradoxes.

[Jeff Winston]

I'm trying to pull out why you think there was a problem regarding the grandfather clause. Let's see if I can figure out what you're referring to.

By searching in one of your posts, you said:

...citizenship, natural born or otherwise, was far more than just being born on this soil. Any animal can do that. The grandfather clause would not have been necessary if that were the case.

So you say that if being born on US soil qualifies a person to be a natural born citizen, then the grandfather clause was unnecessary? Is that it?

Do you know WHY the grandfather clause was included?

Strictly speaking, the grandfather clause WAS unnecessary, for almost all of those who might have become President.

But there were a few people who were among our honored early leaders, who were not born on American soil.

These people gave and sacrificed much for the American cause. They poured their lives into it. And those men are why the grandfather clause was added.

It wasn't added for Washington, or Jefferson, or John Adams. All of these had been born on American soil. As James Madison pretty much noted in the debate regarding Smith, such persons were natural born citizens of the communities they were born in. And when we parted with England, their allegiance was FIRST to those communities and SECOND to the distant King and the English government.

In other words, George Washington was born in Virginia, and that alone made him a natural born subject/citizen of Virginia. When Virginia split from England, he stayed a natural born subject/citizen of Virginia. And when the United States was declared, that made him a natural born citizen of the United States.

It was not so with men like James Wilson and Alexander Hamilton, both of whom were important delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Wilson was born in Scotland to Scottish parents, and came to America when he was 24. This was 10 years before the Declaration of Independence. Wilson pushed for Independence.

And you can tell, in some of the discussions at the Constitutional Convention, that he was deeply offended that people like himself, not born in America, should be considered second-class citizens when it came to being considered for positions in the new government.

Also in this boat was Alexander Hamilton, one of the most brilliant young delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and quite possibly the man who pushed the hardest of all for ratification of the new Constitution. And do you know what? Without Hamilton's efforts, the new Constitution might well have failed.

But Hamilton was not born in America. He was born on Nevis, in the British West Indies, and came to America as a young man.

It was for Hamilton and Wilson, and those like them, that the grandfather clause was included. Unfortunately, Hamilton, who might well have taken advantage of that clause to become one of our early Presidents, never really got the chance. He died a young man in a stupid duel with the sitting Vice-President of the United States.

So now you know.

[DiogenesLamp]

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States. 302 persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899

I would argue that anyone who is a citizen as a result of a subsequent act of Congress cannot be a "natural citizen". A "natural citizen" is a citizen by nature, not by acts of man.

[butterdezillion]

So even if the voters elected Vladimir Putin it would be a violation of the 2nd Article for him to BE President and it would be a violation of the 20th Amendment for him to “act as President”? Would you agree?

[txrefugee]

Did they ask their chubby contributor, Karl Rove, for this opinion?

[Jeff Winston]

No, we are just pointing out that a Lawyer Heavily trained in BRITISH law, may not be the best authority for arguing what is the meaning of UNIQUE portions of AMERICAN law.

You really don't know how lawyers were trained in the early United States, do you?

[butterdezillion]

SCOTUS should hear the cases about Obama’s eligibility, subpoena all the records, and if it is found that he is not eligible he should be judicially disabled from “acting as President” as per the 20th Amendment. Joe Biden should immediately become “acting President” and be impeached for treason. Nancy Pelosi and all the other Congress-critters who knew Obama was ineligible should be arrested immediately for treason, after which impeachment hearings should be held for Joe Biden - with the one or two Senators who aren’t in jail.

[DiogenesLamp]

So for you to claim, falsely, that Rawle "was on the OTHER SIDE during the war" is flat-out despicable.

Should we believe that he was in blatant defiance of his Step Father in supporting the American cause? That is a ridiculous claim. He may have came to be a Patriotic (Patriotic derives from Pater, meaning "Father" by the way.) American, but he certainly could not have been while living with his Loyalist stepfather, and while getting his legal training in London.

Incidentally, the same article notes that Rawle only spent a total of two years studying in England AND traveling through Europe. I can imagine the latter probably took up at least half of that.

How long did it take to learn English law back then? Two years would seem adequate to me.

All of which was well before he sat WITH BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND GEORGE WASHINGTON at Franklin's house.

You might think a man is known by his associates, but Judas kept excellent company. That Rawle had hung around with luminaries does not mean he knows what they had decided in 1787.

You also neglected to mention that Rawle was appointed BY GEORGE WASHINGTON in 1791 as U.S. District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania.

Which does not prove that he is correct on this issue.

Finally, we can note that not only was Rawle's statement about the children of aliens CRYSTAL clear, NOBODY EVER CONTESTED IT. Nobody ever said that Rawle was wrong. On the contrary, his quote was later referenced as authority by the United States Supreme Court.

So was Vattel. And in quite deliberate fashion. This just reinforces my point that the court can sometimes be wrong. When they were quoting Rawle, they were wrong.

[RegulatorCountry]

There were quite a number of people residing in the colonies who were born elsewhere at that time. The mid-eighteenth century was a period of large influx from the German-speaking regions of Europe. Among these, very few were Loyalist, not here and not elsewhere in the thirteen colonies, that I'm aware.

Your argument for selfish motivation does not hold water when you consider just how many decades came and went before an actual NBC was elected President, rather than one of the original citizens of this nation who were “grandfathered.”

You realize that the children of the Founders born before the Revolution weren't natural born either, don't you? The “soil” wasn't regarded as having possessed some magical property conveying eligibility to the Presidency before the Presidency ever existed.

The “soil” is the geographic territory of the nation, under the full jurisdiction of it. Mt. Vernon in Virginia was not on the “soil” of the United States in 1760. It was on English soil. That is because the geographic territory was under the jurisdiction of England.

That ceased upon the establishment of a new nation, the United States. At that point, Mt. Vernon became native “soil.”