Posted on 01/16/2016 3:43:22 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Stinkin’ Canadian. Dang feriner, conspirin’ to come over here and replace our delicious, crispy, all-American bacon with that floppy, communist, Canadian crap. And Budweiser? Like your Budweiser? Forget it. If he’s elected, it’s nothing but that skunky Molson swill for you, my friend. Football? Banned. It’s all sticks, pucks and missing teeth from here on out. A wall on the southern border? ISIS? TB-infected Mesicans and Central Americans? Ha! A mere diversion. Trump needs to build that wall up north to keep commie Canucks like Ted Cruz out of the White House.
He’s gaining on The Donald, you see. And so finally the question of his eligibility to serve as our 45th U.S. president is fair game. Oh, sure, Ted grew up in Houston, Texas. And, oh, sure, his mother, who happened to be over the border in Canada when Ted was born, is a U.S citizen, herself born in Wilmington, Delaware, which, oh, sure, automatically makes Ted a U.S. citizen from birth. But, hey! I, the guys down at the Elks Lodge with their pocket constitutions and whatnot, and Donald Trump, who, with his own political self-interests in mind has suddenly flip-flopped on the subject, all disagree. Ted Cruz is ineligible to serve as President of the United States based upon our extreme-minority take on the phrase, “Natural-born citizen.â€
For that matter, and based upon our own arbitrary and narrow definition – I know, it’s not defined in the Constitution, but derpity derp derp anyway – some might suggest that eight of the first nine U.S. presidents should have been ineligible to serve as well. Since they were all born as British citizens in the British colonies, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et al., should have been, one and all, constitutionally ineligible.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Yes, this is precisely my point and I thank you for your forbearance.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"
do you not understand? Don't you have a more pressing Islamic invasion going on right now? I suggest you work on Germanys' Merkel problem and leave to us to work on our Cruz problem.
Exactly!
I don't believe it is in America's interest to weaken the protections afforded by the Constitution now or at any time and I hope Cruz is running to highlight the problem so it will be settled once & for all.
The author is in short an idiot. Since the constitution specifically grand fathered in all those former British subjects.
Not necessary people like Larry Tribe and apparently Ted Cruz think the constitution means what they (Tripe, Cruz) say it means. And once you buy into that living constitution argument you will never be a free person ever again. This is why Ted Cruz is a very dangerous man. He is willing to trash the constitution to further is political career.
This is my research, seems pretty cut & dried
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise "the Law of Nations," written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.
In book one chapter 19 Section 212. Of the citizens and natives. "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
If this issue were clear cut, as some maintain, there wouldn't be nearly the level of controversy. This is not a ginned up controversy. It is a controversy among men of good faith. The controversy itself is an indicator that the issue is NOT so simple or easily resolved.
I have a point of view I think justified, and I am ready to defend it, but it is not productive to have to defend it against attacks that are intentionally dishonest and intended to divert attention away from the real issues.
Everything I write is intended to add to, not detract from, clarity of thought on the issues.
I thank you for your patience and understanding.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
I agree that the primary article is nonsense. Otherwise, I doubt we would agree on much.
Who says this is a supporter?
Could be a person knowingly stirring up the pot.
Then we are lost. The oligarchy now rules at its’ whim. Why even participate in the system any longer?
I suppose I should be happy here in my little corner of the world until they come for me.
So if that is true then wouldn't somebody who had to resort to such a law enacted by Congress be, of necessity, a naturalized citizen?
‘I didn’t try to hide what I did. I was very explicit about it and provided the original as well as my ‘updated’ version.’
I took pains to point that out and assumed you might have forgotten the original wording. Original intent is ‘father’. Vattel did not dispute that. Nor did the 14th Amendment enumerate anything about natural born status.
**Equal protection is not the same as equal opportunity.**
Your argument might make more sense if everyone was cooperative, but you need a devil’s advocate to bounce off your points. We can’t expect the Establishment Republicans and Flaky Chief Just-us Roberts to be cooperative, and we certainly can’t expect democrats to be honest or helpful.
Permit me to hint, A man born with Kenya citizenship, foreign allegiance, has added 10 trillion to our debt and is now busy importing a fifth column death cult that is hell bent on killing us. He also gave aid to the death cult to start ISIS.
Yep I read it quite clearly as well as the heading of the section: Citizens & Natives.
That clearly indicates that they are two separate designations: Citizens and Natives(aka Native Born Citizens).
The section I appended earlier deals with Natives as distinct from Citizens the sections that follow deal with citizens: by naturalization, citizenship of those born in a foreign country, at sea, in armies of the state and of inhabitants of a country as opposed to citizens.
Seems pretty straight forward & businesslike to me, laid out in an orderly fashion with definitions and situation analysis. One class of natural born and the many ways a person could be considered a citizen. Letters between the Founders at the time of the writing indicate they concurred.
He does so himself. See 21.
After that, the door to the presidency is wide open to every country on the planet, as long as you can prove you share some DNA with an American.
Born of US citizens on US soil. These are the natives or natural born citizens. They are natural because they can be nothing else, but pure Americans.
Well said..worth repeating.
I agree with you completely. If men/women of honest intent disagree and both try to argue honestly and defend their positions they may in the end agree to disagree but both learn from the exercise.
‘Contrary to some, there never was a unanimity of opinion about this issue, and the evidence is replete throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.’
Rush Limbaugh would wholeheartedly agree. He’s intimidated by this.
I hoped Cruz could clear it up himself.
But if it remains a murky issue, that’s not good — cage fight between Cruz supporters and everyone else.
‘Then we are lost.’
Nope.
If Cruz can’t clear this up, Cruz loses to the Establishment for ONE campaign. Not the end of the world.
BUT ... if Cruz drags half of conservatives into trench warfare over this dispute WITHOUT clearing it up, then WE ALL lose.
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.