Posted on 05/06/2013 9:44:33 AM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
“Another birther controversy could be brewing for 2016,” MSNBC host Chuck Todd informed on Monday. Though this time aimed at a Republican: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who was born in Canada. While Cruz likely doesn’t face any real eligibility problems, Todd acknowledged, “questions are being asked.”
Snip~
How exactly is “natural-born citizen” defined? Since Cruz’s mother was born in the U.S. and his father became a citizen in 2005, Todd explained, going on to list similar scrutiny faced by President Obama, George Romney, and John McCain.
“The legal evidence seems to side with Cruz,” Todd argued, “but there is a grey area, and that may be all his opponents need.”
“It’s pretty clear that he qualifies as natural born,” Peter Spiro, a professor at Temple University, stated in response to Todd’s earlier question about how the term is defined. To clarify, Todd summed up: “If you are born to U.S. citizens abroad, no matter where, if they are U.S. citizens, if…one of your parents is a U.S. citizen — then that should qualify as natural born.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
“To repeat: Canadian citizenship laws have no effect whatsoever on American citizenship laws. Cruz was an American citizen from birth. That is a fact not in dispute.”
To repeat: I have no disagreement with what you have said above. Only it doesn’t respond to the point I was making. Please go back and read the post you just responded to, and tell me what point I was trying to make.
“By what authority do you assert he “cannot be a natural born U.S. citizen”? “
Do I really have to go post all the court cases, Vattel, George Washington having checked out a copy of Vattel from the library that was just discovered in the last couple of years, etc.?
I’ve long since given up trying to convince birthers. Since they believe all 50 states, all 535 members of Congress and all the courts (and all the district attorneys in all 50 states) are in on a Great Conspiracy, what chance do my words have of blowing them out of their Ludlum novel?
No one agrees with you. Case after case gets laughed out of court. No one in Congress. You can’t get a single state - not Arizona, or Utah, or Oklahoma, or Alabama - to pay attention to you.
And now y’all are claiming that Hillary “Natural Born Citizen” is loyal to America, while Ted “Dirty Immigrant” Cruz is conflicted by his inner loyalty to Canada!?!?! Do y’all have any idea how STUPID that sounds?
“Do I really have to go post all the court cases...”
Please do!
No. You have to explain to me why it is that, given the thousands upon thousands of politicians, lawyers, jurists, professors and constitutional scholars there are in the USA, nary a one raised any question whatsoever about whether Barack Obama qualified as a "natural-born citizen" from the day he announced for the Presidency.
After all, he admits in his biography that his father was a Kenyan and, thus, a British national -- certainly not a U.S. citizen.
Yet, there was nary a peep about Obama's eligibility from anybody who, according to you, should've known better.
Why would that be?
There is a potential disconnect between WHAT Sheriff Joe and the Cold Case Posse have ascertained, i.e., that the documents in question are forged ...and WHODUNNIT. The fact that it is fairly obvious sometimes doesn't mean much in a court of law. "OK the documents are fakes. Now what?
Also try this on Holiday Express Lawyers (myself included). The forged documents don't really have much to do directly with the question of Constitutional Eligibility.
If someone in authority somewhere decides to look over Sheriff Joes's stuff, and agrees with it ... publicly ... we have a shot at shaming the guy from office, particularly if Congress gets in the act. A longer shot than Frac Daddy in the Derby.
Then, if some miraculous concatenation of events finally forces the SCOTUS to get off its ass and accept a case ... that would actually not have an effect on a sitting President. A in, "OK, he was ineligible. But he is the President." It would STILL be up to Congress to throw the bum out.
Cruz’s mother, from what I have read, was a US citizen at the time of his birth. If his father had not officially renounced, (however one does that officially and legally) his Cuban citizenship, then he was a Cuban national. It hardly seems possible that he reamined “a man without a country” for decades, as he only naturalized as a US citizn in, I think, 2005.
And being born in Canada where his parents were living and continued to reside for 4 years, is also disqualifying.
“No. You have to explain to me why it is that, given the thousands upon thousands of politicians, lawyers, jurists, professors and constitutional scholars there are in the USA, nary a one raised any question whatsoever about whether Barack Obama qualified as a “natural-born citizen” from the day he announced for the Presidency. “
What?
What does this have to do with whether or not Ted Cruz might be a Canadian citizen? I earlier posted a link to a website in Canada that indicates that Canada had birthright citizenship in 1970 when Cruz was born. I’m just trying to find an authoritative reference that says Cruz isn’t (also) Canadian. Let’s discuss one thing at a time.
But, in response to your above question, Phillip Berg (a democrat) filed a court case in 2008 prior to Obama’s election.
From Justia:
Case Number: 2:2008cv04083
Filed: August 21, 2008
It was later dismissed without reviewing the merits as have all court cases since then, except for the few that made decisions based on arguably faulty interpretations. None of which has been the Supreme Court of the United States which, according to Clarence Thomas, is evading the issue.
Additionally, everyone has been in protection mode: either protecting 0bama or protecting their backsides from being branded as a racist or “birther”.
““Do I really have to go post all the court cases...”
Please do!”
Nice try, Rog. You know all the threads where this information has been posted, as you have participated in much of the discussion and posting of legal cases.
Just in case, do a keyword search on naturalborn and Free Republic will provide endless hours of reference information and entertainment.
Guess I should have added the /sarc tag to my rhetorical question.
Court cases have been posted a gazillino times and those who want to remain blind due to personal or political biases will continue to remain blind.
Because they are either leftists without any principles, or eunuchs who are afraid to say “boo”.
“... while Ted “Dirty Immigrant” Cruz is ...”
Why would you call Ted Cruz a “Dirty Immigrant”? Don’t you like Hispanics (who according to Bill Richardson really aren’t) that are born in Canada?
“... telling you to blow it out your butt.”
“... birthers ...”
“...‘laughed out of court’...”
“You are mad.”
And now you’ve added “STUPID”.
That’s the one that convinced me. Now I see the light! Hallelujah, I’m saved from from the depths of ignorance.
There is a potential disconnect between WHAT Sheriff Joe and the Cold Case Posse have ascertained, i.e., that the documents in question are forged ...and WHODUNNIT. The fact that it is fairly obvious sometimes doesn’t mean much in a court of law. “OK the documents are fakes. Now what?
Once his docs are publically and legally ascertained to be forgeries, then the investigation into “who is he, who are his parents, and where and when was he born?” starts.
So, in support of the your position, you have a single court case -- dismissed without review of the merits. Actually, at the time, I thought Berg was concerned with the validity of the birth certificate -- not the "natural-born citizen" issue.
Thousands upon thousands of constitutional experts who, according to you, should've known better -- and not a single effective challenge was launched against Obama's eligibility.
And, to respond, whether or not Cruz qualified for Canadian citizenship or not has no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of his American citizenship.
Who is it that is charged with interpreting God’s law for the government?
The offspring of unknown fathers, disputed fathers or closed adoptions can never be president? I don’t think so.
“Court cases have been posted a gazillino times and those who want to remain blind due to personal or political biases will continue to remain blind.”
Rog is just pulling my leg. He’s a big kidder. I don’t really know him, but he appears to have a good sense of humor. You can tell by his writing.
“Nice try, Rog. You know all the threads where this information has been posted...”
IOW, you know there ARE no cases...other than the 4 or 5 usual suspects, none of which say anything like what World Nut Daily says they say!
“Who is it that is charged with interpreting God’s law for the government?”
That’s EXACTLY the point. If you’re a natural born Citizen there is NO interpretation by the government required.
“The offspring of unknown fathers, disputed fathers or closed adoptions can never be president? I don’t think so.”
Unknown fathers means the government has to interpret this. Ergo, not “natural”.
Closed adoption may be EXACTLY why we have who we have in the White House.
“So, in support of the your position, you have a single court case — dismissed without review of the merits.”
I was just responding to your assertion that “...nary a one raised any question whatsoever...”
“No. You have to explain to me why it is that, given the thousands upon thousands of politicians, lawyers, jurists, professors and constitutional scholars there are in the USA, nary a one raised any question whatsoever about whether Barack Obama qualified as a “natural-born citizen” from the day he announced for the Presidency.”
There were a number of cases including Leo Donofrio’s about that time or shortly thereafter.
Please, do a keyword search on naturalborn and you can find out everything that’s been going on since 2008.
It’s past my bedtime, guys. I’ll check in tomorrow.
Birth within the country assures no claims of allegiance by a foreign sovereignty, but it can be argued that those born “beyond the seas” could be regarded as natural born and in fact were for five years, from 1790 to 1795. Making any sort of attempt at a blanket acknowledgment proved problematic for some reason, and it seems reasonably clear to me that the problem was and is “ius soli” claims of sovereignty due to birth in a foreign nation. Not all foreign nations made that claim, and not all do today. If Canada didn't claim jurisdiction over Ted Cruz due to his having been born there, then there is no potential foreign legal interference or competition with his US citizenship.
If theses two situations were to be resolved favorably, I believe Ted Cruz is eligible. If there's a foreign claim due to either one, he's not.
So under your theory its God’s will that Hillary Clinton can be the next president but Ted Cruz can’t.
I see.
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.