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

[DiogenesLamp]

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:

Once again, you are an idiot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas F. Bayard:

Bayard studied law and was admitted to the Bar in 1851 and worked as his father’s assistant.

His father was James A Bayard III, and He wrote that book to which you refer. Either James A Bayard III didn't teach his son the basic concept of citizenship, or James A Bayard III thought Jeff was a Fooking idiot and reached out from beyond the grave to bitchslap you.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just discovered something MamaTexan. The Bayard you found that contradicts Jeff is not the guy who wrote that book. It's his son.

The Guy who wrote that book was James A Bayard III, and the guy who made that comment you found was Thomas F Bayard. Still, Thomas F Bayard worked as his father's legal assistant for years, so it's doubtful that his opinion would vary greatly from that of his father.

It's still an excellent find, and it STILL proves Jeff is an idiot.

[Jeff Winston]

It’s normally considered common courtesy to ping someone to a post in which you accuse them of “UTTER BULLSH*T,” being an “unmitigated liar,” being an “obsessed, pathological Liar,” and so forth.

Not that I expect common courtesy from you, but still. You could at least attempt to keep up the appearance of it.

There’s no conflict between James Asheton Bayard, Jr.’s position and that of his son Thomas.

James told us that if a person is a citizen by birth, then he’s a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

Thomas told us that if a German father WHO IS DOMICILED NOT IN THE UNITED STATES BUT IN GERMANY comes over to the United States and has a child here DURING HIS BRIEF, UNDOMICILED STAY, then that child is not a US citizen.

Now the point is debatable. The Supreme Court in Wong (1898) found that the child born here of DOMICILED alien parents was a natural born US citizen.

And yes, they didn’t spell it out in the final proclamation, but the spelled it out earlier in the core reasoning of the case. The core reasoning of the case is precedent just as much as the final proclamation is.

But they didn’t necessarily specify that children born here of NON-DOMICILED aliens are born US citizens.

That’s how it’s largely been interpreted since then, but I don’t think it’s an essential conclusion of the case.

That being the case, there’s not necessarily any conflict between the views of James Bayard, his son Thomas, and the Supreme Court in Wong.

James Bayard says that if you’re born a citizen, you’re a natural born citizen.

Thomas Bayard says that if you’re born on US soil of an alien parent who’s over here as a temporary tourist, but doesn’t live here, you’re not born a citizen.

And the Supreme Court says that if you’re born on US soil of alien parents who have established their DOMICILE here, who LIVE here, then you ARE a natural born citizen.

All of the above sound reasonable to me.

[Windflier]

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.

I'm not trying to "guilt trip" you. If you want to follow the libs down the path of destroying our founding charter, go right ahead.

I don't care how much the left disregards and tramples on our Constitution. They can even write and sign laws that haven't got a tether to it, but I reserve the right to defiantly disagree, and to steadfastly demand a return to the rule of law and a healthy respect for, and adherence to, our Constitution.

Seems to me you're justifying throwing away the fundamental precepts which make us conservatives, Lake. I'd rather stand and face our enemies man to man in a life or death contest, than abandon what I believe in.

[Jeff Winston]

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.

The English language is the same in both instances.

1. "Children born to US citizens abroad are natural born citizens."

2. "Children must be picked up after school by their parents."

In neither instance does the English language say specifically that BOTH parents are necessarily required.

Aside from which, again, Bayard made it clear: Being born a citizen is all that's required in order to be eligible to be President.

[DiogenesLamp]

There’s no conflict between James Asheton Bayard, Jr.’s position and that of his son Thomas.

Oh, I agree about that. Both of them DISAGREE completely with your botched attempt to put false words in the father's mouth.

Thomas told us that if a German father WHO IS DOMICILED NOT IN THE UNITED STATES BUT IN GERMANY comes over to the United States and has a child here DURING HIS BRIEF, UNDOMICILED STAY, then that child is not a US citizen.

Father, temporary resident, has child here. Now who does that remind me of? But it is beside the point. The WORD ACCORDING TO JEFF, is that ANYONE born here is a citizen. ANYONE. Period! 100,000,000 percent! No Exceptions EVER! ALL AUTHORITIES AGREE!! Eleventy!

All of the above sound reasonable to me.

It is rant and nonsense, and it only sounds reasonable to you because you are a crackpot that lies to himself.

[MamaTexan]

The Bayard you found that contradicts Jeff is not the guy who wrote that book. It's his son

Thanks for the info! I thought there might be a familial connection, but hadn't looked it up yet.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Thanks for being there.......I am a big fan.

[MamaTexan]

That's very kind, thank you.

I wonder sometimes during all the bruhaha if anyone else is reading the thread.

I guess now I know!

:-)

[Lakeshark]

Actually you appear to be doing just that.

There are plenty of good conservative legal minds that disagree with the take of the birthers, yet you are being dismissive of them rather than looking at what they are saying. For you to sneer at the vast majority of conservative opinion, then presume that means I'm someone willing to trample on the constitution makes your argument ring hollow.

There was legitimate argument against the birthers to begin with, legitimate arguments that show the birther nonsense is not the constitutional way, yet you seem to be choosing to go all guilt trip instead of realizing you may not be correct in presuming the birthers are the ones who might be seeing this wrong.

Not to mention that funny thing called "precedent". If they had an argument, it's gone. For anyone to presume one of our finest candidates should follow one (somewhat crazy) interpretation of the Constitution by the stormfronters and libs that inhabit them, of all groups, is a bit unsettling. Sorry, that's where the birther nonsense resides, the stormfronters.

Like I once said, some groups of conservative "purists" are not often so pure and are often just as stupid as the GOPE. For us to follow one crazy group and take out one of our best future candidates is more than unsettling. Look at the responses to post # 42. It's an example of why we lose all the time now. The circulare firing squad will get them all, including Cruz and Palin.

[Windflier]

There was legitimate argument against the birthers to begin with, legitimate arguments that show the birther nonsense is not the constitutional way, yet you seem to be choosing to go all guilt trip instead of realizing you may not be correct in presuming the birthers are the ones who might be seeing this wrong.

Lake, I'm not trying to guilt trip you, but your argument is one based in desperation - not logic. Your last response is all over the map.

Now you're accusing those of us who understand the NBC clause as the Framers did, of being Stormfronters? Friend, I'd expect a slander like that out of a GOP-e shill or a lib, but not a Freeper.

And you keep throwing the word 'purist' around like it's an ad hominem. Dude. Do you realize what ground you're arguing from? Only the enemies of the republic want to see the NBC standard weakened. Conservatives want to see the highest standard possible maintained.

Alright. I tried to end off a few posts back before we got here. It's not my intent to escalate the disagreement and distance between us by arguing over this.

[Lakeshark]

If you don't think the birther thing is deeply centered in the Stormfronters, you're being naive. They ARE the epicenter of the issue, and they're NOT REALLY THE LAST WORD OR THE REPOSITORY OF TRUTH ON THIS ISSUE!. Sorry I yelled......:-)

You're still not addressing the actual issue, you're just claiming the birthers are the ones who understand the truth, and to me clearly they aren't. It's the same scam the RonPaulers used to run, they would claim they were the ones who loved the constitution, and were the only ones that understood it. They used it as a guilt trip on those who disagreed with them.

Okay, I'm also going to back off, I respect you too much, and no, I don't think you're a Stormfronter, never did.

I wish you a good day sir, and truly mean it.

[Godebert]

"Did Ted Cruz have to take a Citizenship Test to become a Citizen? NO So by Definition he is a Natural Born Citizen..."

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Biggest Cover-up in American History