Rand Paul: I'm Not A Birther!(Won't Question Cruz Eligibility)

Obama Release Your Records ^ | August 14, 2013

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

(CNN) – Republican Sen. Rand Paul welcomed praise from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who said she's on "Team Rand" when it comes to the recent intraparty feud between the senator from Kentucky and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

In an interview to air on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront," Paul also said Tuesday he plans to stay out of the debate over whether his fellow Republican colleague Sen. Ted Cruz would be eligible to run for president. [...]

On another front, his Senate colleague Ted Cruz has stoked speculation of a potential White House bid with his recent trips to early presidential primary voting states. Some, however, question whether Cruz would be eligible to run for president, given that he was born in Canada to an American-born mother and a Cuban-born father.

But Paul said he's not wading into that debate.

"You won't find me questioning his eligibility. I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to be a birther for Democrats. I'm not a birther for Republicans," he said. "I'm staying out of that. Yeah, I'm just staying out of that one."

- See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/08/rand-paul-to-cnn-wont-question-cruz.html#sthash.XZ3Aeg8d.dpuf

[little jeremiah]

lj: Needs details. Like names.

cc: In other words you need to be led. No wonder you’re so easily manipulated.

---

Not at all. Since you engage in nasty unnamed innuendo, I asked you to be forth right and honest in your accusations. Not because I want to be “led” as you keep repeating like a sheep baa-ing, but because I don’t believe you.

[Jeff Winston]

Yes, Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible to be President - according to the top authorities of the early United States who knew exactly what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born citizen." And all the statements that he isn't need to stop.

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1833)

This was part of Bayard's discussion of qualifications to be President and Presidential eligibility.

Bayard's exposition of the Constitution was read and approved by the Great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the famous Chancellor James Kent, as well as other legal experts of the early United States.

Not one single person ever said he was wrong about his understanding of what "natural born citizen" meant.

[Responsibility2nd]

Its very Simple.

Ted Cruz is a US citizen. No one disputes that. What is at issue is if he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Hundreds of lower courts have ruled on the definition and meaning of NBC. The Supreme Court has upheld those rulings by not overriding them. Congress and the 50 States have not challenged those rulings.

This is a settled issue. A US citizen is a NBC. And no matter what the Constitution says or meant.....

Arthur, McCain, Obama, Cruz, whoever - whatever. All eligible to be the US prez.

[GraceG]

Amazing that the msm has spent more time in one week investigating Sen Cruz than they have in 5 years of Urkel’s despotic rule.

Shows how scared shitless they are of someone like Cruz or Cruz himself getting in...

I think that Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee should all run in the primaries for 2016, when the gang of RINOs starts ganging up on them they shoudl all conference together and Decide amongst the three who will run and have all their supporters get behind of them while the RINO vote is split to smash the damned RINOs and win the primary.

It may sound liek a bit or dirty “pool” but we need to defeat the damn rinos...

[NFHale]

We tend to eat our own sometimes... and it sucks.
The dems sit and laugh.

Cruz is a Good Man.

[GraceG]

Its very Simple.

Ted Cruz is a US citizen. No one disputes that. What is at issue is if he is a Natural Born Citizen.

Is Ted Cruz a Citizen? YES

Did Ted Cruz have to take a Citizenship Test to become a Citizen? NO

So by Definition he is a Natural Born Citizen...

[Plummz]

Does Ted Cruz rely on US statute rather than natural law for his claim of citizenship? YES

Therefore, Ted Cruz is a naturalized citizen.

[OldNewYork]

I agree. I was fairly enthusiastic about the man for a while, until he made his statements regarding illegal aliens. With the field of choices being as poor as it is, and his otherwise good character, he was beginning to seem redeemed again, until this. But what can you expect from politicians?

[noinfringers2]

Over and over I repeat that as to such a quotation it is explicit as to children of “ CITIZENS”. Cruz was not a child of “CITIZENS” as his father was a citizen of Cuba with some kind of Castro connection. I’ll also throw in that Cruz was born in Canada and as such does not satisfy a requirement for place of birth to fill out a complete ‘natural born citizen’. As much as I admire Cruz today for his political stands and judgements, I as vet who fought in WWII for the life of our Constitution can not and will not betray my Constitutional beliefs for expediency of politics.

[Sirius Lee]

Anyone who questions Cruz’ eligilibity then has to question Zero’s.

So Rand is a chickens*** coward, like 99.9% of all other Republican politicians.

Then Cruz is a chickenshtt coward since he isn't questioning it either. That makes Republican politicians 100% chickenshtt.

[little jeremiah]

Yes indeed. That is our problem. They all skirt around the fact that we have an illegal president. They skirt around a lot of other stuff too.

There is no opposition party, not really. Some make some good sounds, and Cruz is definitely one of the best ones. But there are too many cowardly weasels, so even the ones who are pretty good can’t seem to get it together to do anything.

Our situation now is like a bunch of bunny wabbits cowering in fear while the snake eats them one by one.

[Lakeshark]

I love the old parchment, and believe in those words as much as you do, so you can cut the guilt trip stuff. Unfortunately that's not what's law in this country and unless you're really delusional, you know what I'm saying is true. For instance, you and I don't believe Obamacare is constitutional. Guess what.......it is, it's the law. The court has ruled it is. Eventually you will have to purchase it, or suffer the legal consequences. You and I don't believe a lot of things should be constitutionally allowed, guess what, it's what the court rules that counts, and the court deals with precedent and uses that precedent. We may not like that, but short of a revolution, or the evolution of the court to 6 Scalias, it's the reality in this country. We can bluster all we want about what should be clear, but that doesn't matter in the face of what's real.

The birther stuff may have once had a point, but even that's not certain. There's a ton of arguments and legal scholars, good conservative ones that don't buy the birther crap (see #42 for one of many arguments why Cruz is constitutionally eligible).

Once again, the main point: Bambi has been elected TWICE, he's president, and his father wasn't a US citizen. Heck, his mother wasn't even old enough at the time, yet there he is on air force one. It's precedent. It's done. For anyone to presume Cruz is not a US citizen or eligible to be president is fatuousness and ignorant considering that fact.

For any conservative to think he shouldn't run because of the birther belief is beyond my capacity to consider. The birther belief system is neither the law, nor is it even considered as an ideal from the constitution by most conservative scholars.

Cruz is one of our best candidates, believes in the conservative ideal, loves the US, is across the board perfect in his understanding of what is needed at this point and to consider derailing him over the silly birther nonsense, nonsense which is easily argued against, and frankly beyond argument considering the precedent that has been set is insane.

[Viennacon]

The question for Cruz comes from natural born citizen vs. naturalized citizen. Obama is ineligible mainly because he forged a birth certificate to say something that was false, making his entire candidacy a sham. If he had come out and said his situation was the same as Ted Cruz’, except in Kenya, the senate would have probably given him the go-ahead.

I too would like this to be sorted out for good (who can run), but that would require someone to take it to the SCOTUS.

[Jeff Winston]

Over and over I repeat that as to such a quotation it is explicit as to children of “ CITIZENS”.

First, as has been mentioned elsewhere:

"Parents are required to pick up their children after school."

Does that require two parents, or just one?

What? TWO parents are required to come and pick up their children?

Oh. And those who have only one child aren't required to do anything? You're only required to come and do the pick up if you have more than one child?

Such an interpretation is silly, and you would never, ever make it.

Likewise, there is absolutely nothing in Bayard's quote that requires two citizen parents. It just isn't in the English language.

Secondly: Bayard was very explicit about what it required in order to be a natural born citizen in the Constitutional sense and eligible to the Presidency:

"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth...

Plain, straightforward English language. "It is only requisite." "Requisite" = REQUIRED. "It is ONLY REQUIRED THAT he should be a CITIZEN BY BIRTH."

Or, in other words: THE ONLY THING THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT HE SHOULD BE A CITIZEN BY BIRTH.

Bayard then continues with an EXAMPLE:

"...and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."

All completely straightforward.

[MamaTexan]

Really Jeff?

Now you're over here trying to defend this quote when I just showed you on this thread that it's BOGUS?

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Your post is a deceitful lie. See Mama Texan’s post 55 and click the link. You’ve been owned!

[American Constitutionalist]

Little Jeremiah and Cripple Creek ? hey guys settle down please.

I love both of you guys and got to know you guys for a long time now.
For me ? I have taken a step back from the birther situation because all of the other things going on has made me weary like all the other scandals and other crap that is going on in the world and how this country is going down hill.... not counting the personal problems that is going on in my life.
I don't want to see both of you at each other... I respect both of you.
I only give a comment on the birther situation once in a while.
There is nothing else for me and others to say until our so called leaders step up to the plate and be responsible leaders.
Most of everything I see in the news and in politics ? it's a lot of hot air and BS.
All of us need to step back and go out and enjoy life for while because hanging onto everything that is said in the political world or the MSM is going to just drive us crazy and have no peace if we don't go out and relax once in a while.

[DiogenesLamp]

There's a ton of arguments and legal scholars, good conservative ones that don't buy the birther crap (see #42 for one of many arguments why Cruz is constitutionally eligible).

And here is someone citing JEFF'S UTTER BULLSH*T as proof of something.

Let me inform you of something. Jeff is an unmitigated liar. If he says the sun is out, don't believe him. He is absolutely wrong about Bayard, but that doesn't stop him from quoting Bayard as supporting his position. Well here is Bayard's Son REBUKING Jeff's position.

Like I said, Jeff is an obsessed, pathological Liar. This isn't the first time he's been caught in an absolute and demonstrable lie.

Bayard doesn't support Jeff's position at all, but Jeff has been claiming that he does for the past month or so.

Now to address your other points. The courts may be able to piss on your head and tell you it's raining, but I, and probably a lot of others are not going to accept it simply because they say so.

For a long period of History, we have seen the courts make a mockery of our legal system by proclaiming nonsensical, ridiculous things as law. The occasions of such are so numerous that no one who has kept up with them any longer regards the Courts and the legal system as honest or even competent.

The Courts are simply politics by fiat. You appoint the Judges, you get the decisions you want. That there is any longer any sort of intellectual objectivity to it is stark nonsense.

We have been sailing off the charts since Roosevelt and Truman stacked the courts with Liberal kooks for 20 years. It is as a result of this that we got nonsensical decisions like Wickard, Miranda, Roe, Kelo, Lawrence, and the latest cherry on top of this idiocy, Obamacare. (as a TAX, mind you.)

So let me sum it up. About the courts, I do not give a D@mn. They have power, but they don't have truth, and we ought not to grant them the power that comes with respect for their authority.

They act like Clowns and we should regard them as clowns. The system is broken, and it will eventually collapse. We should prepare for the next iteration, if we live long enough.

[Jeff Winston]

Your post is a deceitful lie. See Mama Texan’s post 55 and click the link. You’ve been owned!

Let me give you a clue, here, Cold Case Posse Supporter.

A NORMAL person would say, "Gee. I don't see that. Can you direct me to where you got that quote?"

Not a birther. A birther immediately launches into a personal attack against anyone who posts a fact that shoots down his precious myth.

MamaTexan said:

Here's the Google results for your *quote*

I'm afraid you don't know how to do an advanced search on Google's vast store of books. It is different from a regular Google search. Perhaps you should learn about it.

Gee, I wonder why all those lead to YOUR POSTS ON FR, Jeff? I wonder why this quote can't be found ANYWHERE else on the net.

Would you like to know what a LEGITMATE quote from Bayard looks like, Jeff?

Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.' A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183

Anyone who twists the facts and truncates quotes in order to support a false argument has nothing to say that would interest me at all.

Sigh.

The Bayard you quote was THOMAS F. BAYARD.

THOMAS Bayard was the SON of JAMES ASHETON BAYARD, JR. (who, quite confusingly, was really James Asheton Bayard III, but still went by "Junior.").

The doctrine of THOMAS Bayard, as US Secretary of State in the LATE 1800S, was that Richard Griesser, born in Ohio to a German father who was DOMICILED IN GERMANY, was not a US citizen.

That's not an unreasonable doctrine. It is an ANTI-BIRTH-TOURISM doctrine.

In any event, THOMAS Bayard wrote those words in 1887, an entire century after the Constitution was ratified.

THOMAS Bayard's opinion has some validity to it. Why should the son of a German father who was here ONLY TEMPORARILY, who DID NOT STAY HERE, who DID NOT MAKE HIS HOME IN THE UNITED STATES, be a United States citizen?

On the other hand, if Griesser had been DOMICILED here (like the parents of Wong Kim Ark) then his child born here would have been a natural born citizen.

But the Bayard that I was referring to is James Asheton Bayard, Jr., the author of A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, way back in 1833.

FIFTY-FOUR YEARS EARLIER.

And here is the link, to the 1840 edition of Bayard's book.

More than the link, here are images of the relevant pages.

Now, CCPS, both you and MamaTexan owe me a great big huge apology for falsely accusing me of posting "a bogus quote" and posting a "deceitful lie."

[noinfringers2]

This is not a discussion of parents actions for their children. It is a discussion about eligibility by reason of parentage to be POTUSA. Comparative analogies can be very misleading if not deceptive or even non applicable.