Posted on 04/08/2016 9:02:58 PM PDT by patlin
You thereby mislead people without a legal background to imagine the law is not the law. You don't get the basic message that no court would be caught dead treating birther fantasy as "law." However, you apparently hallucinate that if you repeat the same old BS just another 186,000 times as though it were not BS, maybe some how, some way, some eccentric or senile excuse for a judge might agree with your utterly discredited nonsense. Wishin' and hopin', right?
The constitution is not what you hallucinate it to be just because you really, really, REALLY want it to be so. Grow up! Oh, and I am mocking your attempt to distort the constitution of the United States to suit your purposes. I also question the motives of birthers who seem to have nothing more important to worry about than to push their obsession at the expense of the country. And yes, I get very tired of dealing with this idiocy but I will persist in the best interest of my country.
"Constitutional" fantasy: birtherism. Real constitutional issues: (1) the death of 60+ million innocents and counting under an utterly non-existent "constitutional" guarantee made up of whole cloth by SCOTUS in violation of the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments of a woman's "right to choose to butcher her baby," (2) the SCOTUS ban on prayer in public places in direct violation of the First Amendment, (3) the SCOTUS policy inflicting a non-existent "constitutional" right to formalized sexual perversion gay "marriage" and, by implication, "gay" everything else on the states in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment and, certainly in no way a goal of the Fourteenth Amendment, (4) the steady federal encroachment on the powers of states and the people in our actual constitutional system of federalism, (5) the continued restoration of the actual Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms which gives hope that sanity and law may be restored on social issues.
But, of what possible significance can there be to the right to keep and bear arms, the right to life itself, the normalcy of marriage, the ongoing death of real federalism, the freedom of worship, when birthers instead prefer to install the constitutionally clueless old Manhattan Motormouth in the White House to continue to ignore these and many other constitutional crises to play "Let's Make a Deal" with Schmucky Chewmer, Nancy Pelosi, Her Royal Thighness, and every other enemy of the American constitution rather than actual conservatives. The Donald will likely appoint several Whoopsies (like Souter, O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, and others with "New York values") who will somehow continue the anticonstitutional norms as wasted "Republican SCOTUS nominees."
I personally don't care if Ted Cruz was born on the planet Jupiter. His mother is an American and so is he. Ditto Marco Rubio, Barry Goldwater, George Romney (maybe), Mitt Romney (maybe), Lowell Weicker (whom I hate above all other political slime), Chester Arthur, John McCain, and, yes, Barack Insane Obozo. Only Cruz and Rubio are trustworthy on court appointments. Get used to the fact that future POTUS pools will be replete with candidates who have one foreign parent or were born off of American soil to at least one citizen. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING in the constitution prohibits that and in our highly mobile society, it will become more and more common.
That you have no actual issues against Cruz is your problem not mine but that is the real reason for this anal retentive ongoing infantile temper tantrum of the "birthers."
Speaking of which, just for variety, don't you want to re-invent and re-introduce the other old chestnuts about isolationism (whose real enemy is interventionism which ought to be a norm whenever practical and desirable), the Illuminati, the "international bankers' conspiracy, Israel's alleged stranglehold on the State Department, the Bilderbergers, the Warburgs, the Rothschilds, the Trilateralists, and all those other not so golden moldy oldies that have failed for soooooo many years and rightfully so as "issues?" And how about that banjo player from the film Deliverance? Shouldn't he be on SCOTUS or maybe even POTUS? A real NBC that one.
Is pointing out that his wife makes $800K from Goldman Sachs and was a proponent of Agenda 21 in the Bush Admin a Nazi attack?
Call me Pollyanna but I still believe the courts (if the right judges are appointed) can be restored. Just as Scalia was leading the SCOTUS and court system back to sanity on the Second Amendment, he died. if the RTKBA can be restored, so can the Right to Life, normal marriage, and a lot of other principles laid waste by a court system run amok. The choke point is the appointment process. We need a POTUS who actually understands the issues and determines to nominate only thoroughly vetted justices and judges who WILL restore the constitution. We need a Senate that will confirm those judges and Muffy's Trust Fund and the Chamber of Commerce be damned.
For the future of our civilization, the shadows lengthen and we had better get our priorities straight and succeed or this, the last best hope on earth, will be gone forever. Ted Cruz may be a flawed vehicle but he is all we have. We all fall short of the glory of God. The question is how far short are we willing to fall?
It's the nail in the coffin, and the key to the question. His mother was on the voting rolls, which means she had to renounce her American citizenship, since they did not recognize dual citizenship.
Actually it’s probably the same guy who bailed him out in Chicago. The one who wants hildabeast elected. Soros. :)
So far I have found the following bits of concrete evidence of Cruz's position and many other relevant materials at Harvard Law Professor Ed Berry's Blog
Cruz’s contrary linguistic interpretation of “natural born” rests on two sorts of sources.
First, he cites to dictionaries about the meaning of “natural born” that discuss lay understandings and were written more than a century after the adoption of the Constitution. See Cruz Brief at 21 n.3. These cannot reliably tell us what the Framers meant when using the term in a legal sense back in 1787.
Second, Cruz cites various legal dictionaries closer to the Constitutional Framing that all equate being “born within the dominions” of the nation with “allegiance” or “ligeance” to the nation.
These dictionaries prove precisely the opposite of his point: that at common law, allegiance or ligeance was equated with the place of birth. Indeed, even current dictionaries define “ligeance” to mean in Britain “the jurisdiction or territory of a liege lord or of a sovereign”,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ligeance, and to mean at law “the territory subject to a sovereign or liege lord.” http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ligeance.
Moreover, even Cruz’s own citations to Black’s Law Dictionary note that it consistently defined “natural born” as “born within the dominions” until 1990, when Cruz says it “defin[ed] ‘natural born citizen’ for the first time to include ‘those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.’” See Cruz Brief at 21 n.4 (emphasis added).
“If Cruz is anywhere on the ticket don’t think for a second the Democrats won’t challenge his eligibility in all fifty states.”
You would be correct and it will be the DNC doing it not some individual. If they challenge Cruz and say his documents are not in order and he can’t produce them they can and will keep him off the ballot. This was a problem in 2008 when both parties had ineligible candidates. They all just shook hands and agreed to ignore it. In 2016 its going to be different.
Hey Levin, is that you? Fantasy? You think the Constitutional eligibility is fantasy and that Congress doesn’t care & so neither do you? Congress has a message for you...
Give Us Liberty Ted Cruz defines Natural Born Citizen in 2012
In March of 2015, I wrote about a Republican Party official from Texas who heard Ted Cruz state face-to-face, that neither he nor Barack Obama are eligible for the Oval Office. The name of the witness remains protected still today, due to concerns over vicious backlashes against his family from blind Cruz loyalists.
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don't have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
Cruz: “I would agree.”
Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”
People have written asking about this witness numerous times since. The above dialogue is held by North American Law Center in the form of a sworn affidavit. The witness is willing to go public only when Texas, a court or congress has opened an investigation on Cruz lies and fraud. Until then, they wish to remain anonymous with good reason. I have witnessed the vicious nature of Cruz supporters myself, many times now.
Thank you I had kept the transcript in another thread but didn’t for some reason keep all of this. Is it a thread on FR. It should be. Easier to find and tag
I tracked that last night and as far as I can tell, there is no video. All JB has is a written affidavit, nothing more, therefore this is just another non-starter.
I have been studying Scalia’s book, “Making Your Case, The Art of Persuading Judges” and it would seem to me that Elliot missed the mark in making his case by relying so heavily on “articles” rather than on Supreme Court precedent such as the Rogers v. Bellei decision that upheld Congress’s authority to naturalize by descent, those born outside the jurisdiction of the United States. I do not see the SCOTUS even entertaining Elliot’s case.
Bykerbayb, (hoosiermama FYI)
I found this link, that has the transcript (I am severely hearing impaired, so my eyes do my hearing, and thus I do text) and the transcript is below
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm
In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don’t have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
Cruz: “I would agree.”
Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”
Thank you. I should have known you would have the transcript.
It is available on several web sites iirc But didn’t have time to look
Have you seen this Bray.
It was the final straw for me. Up till then I excused much of the behavior as something else that could be justified
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gXcYCwaBKnQ
Is the term “birther” somehow less offensive than “dirtbag”?
Really? I mean really?
trying to destroy everyone who disagrees with him, with all his bots marching to his tune.
Most of the departments of the executive branch need killin. The RATs and RINOs need to go "bye-bye".
“...FYI... It’s NOT about Trump!... It’s NOT about Cruz!
It’s about the Constitution of the United States and upholding the Rule of Law!...”
Actually, it’s about saving what’s left of our Country at this point - by any means necessary.
The Constitution is just words on paper unless ALL parties agree to be bound by it and unless those charged with “upholding, protecting, and defending” it do their duty. And at this point in time, realistically, based on the actions or lack of action on the subjects involved, that isnt’ going to happen.
So... what’s Plan B?
Yeah, the “British Common Law” people make me laugh. Don’t they realize that we fought a revolution against British Common Law
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.