Mark Levin Addresses Ted Cruz Eligibility Issue posed by Ridgewood, NJ Man at Book Signing

The Ridgewood Blog ^ | August 27, 2013 | PJBlogger

[Tennessee Nana]

OK Jim

then lets say

Palin/Cruz 2016

or

Cruz/Palin 2016

:)

[Jim Robinson]

Fine by me.

[P-Marlowe]

Conclusory arguments do not win legal cases.

There is no way in Hell that any Federal Court will rule that Ted Cruz is not eligible. So no argument that you make to the contrary is going to do anything but undermine the potential candidacy of Cruz by dividing the conservatives on this wholly irrelevant issue.

Ted Cruz is eligible. Get over it.

[xzins]

Naturalized means “made by decree to be natural.”

If you’re made to be “natural”, then you already were “natural.”

So, then, natural means “by RIGHT.”

You could be a citizen “by right” based on location of birth (jus soli)

OR

You could be a citizen “by right” based on blood (jus sanquinis)

There are only 2 types of citizens:

(1) those made to be citizens

(2) those born already citizens

[P-Marlowe]

We go Cruz/Palin 2016 and then when the election is over and Cruz is president, do you think that the libs are going to challenge his eligibility?

[xzins]

His opinion is based on the law. He has it exact. Summed, but nonetheless right on the money

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)
Section 201(g) NA and section 301(g) INA (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) (formerly section 301(a)(7) INA) both specify that naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth.” Clearly, then, Americans who acquired their citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens are not considered naturalized citizens under either act.

[P-Marlowe]

For those who argue that life begins at conception, I do believe that Ted Cruz was conceived in Austin Texas.

So all true pro life conservatives would have to concede that Ted Cruz became a US Citizen at conception.

[xzins]

Family vacation is so much fun!

[xzins]

Correction in second line: Left out a “not”

Naturalized means “made by decree to be natural.”

If you’re “NOT” made to be “natural”, then you already were “natural.”

So, then, natural means “by RIGHT.”

You could be a citizen “by right” based on location of birth (jus soli)

OR

You could be a citizen “by right” based on blood (jus sanquinis)

There are only 2 types of citizens:

(1) those made to be citizens

(2) those born already citizens

[Godebert]

The Nationality act of 1790 was repealed by the Nationality act of 1795.

Nowhere does the Nationality act of 1795 use the term natural born Citizen.

In fact, Sec. 3 of the Nationality Act of 1795 expressly states in no uncertain terms that:

the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Nowhere in the Nationality Act of 1795 does it declare that those children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens of the United States

[WildHighlander57]

Now THAT’S a good one!

:D

“To: xzins; Tennessee Nana; Jim Robinson; Lakeshark

For those who argue that life begins at conception,I do believe that Ted Cruz was conceived in Austin Texas.

So all true pro life conservatives would have to concede that Ted Cruz became a US Citizen at conception.

307 posted on Tue Aug 27 2013 21:36:33 GMT-0500 (CDT) by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies | Report Abuse]”

[SoConPubbie]

You are exactly right on this. I've decided that the Constitution comes first and anyone who refuses to obey it will not get my vote. Levin can kiss my behind. He is a coward for ignoring the truth and a traitor for misrepresenting it.

So, please show us from the Constitution, relevant US Law, or Supreme Court ruling where your definition has been proven to be legal and constitutional?

[Triple]

I like the guy. I like his politics.

He just does not qualify.

He has a Canadian birth certificate. His father was Cuban.

I just don’t see how he meets the natural born constitutional requirement.

The original intent was to not have a president with potential for divided loyalties.

[SoConPubbie]

I just don’t see how he meets the natural born constitutional requirement.

Once again, you are calling your opinion of "Natural Born" constitutional base on what?

The constitution very clearly lays out the processes involved by which something can be called constitutional.

1. Amendment.
2. US Law passed by Congress and signed by the President.
3. Supreme Court Ruling.

Nowhere does it state that because someone applies the concept of "original intent" to an opinion, outside of these three constitutionally defined processes that that opinion can be considered constitutional.

This is simply your opinion as to the original intent of the founders on this issue.

So stating your opinion declaratively and as if a fact does noting to prove your position, and after having been pointed out to you several times, borders on deceit.

[xzins]

Repealing a law because of a new law is not unusual at all. They updated the original law ever written in which Congress first exercised its power to rule on naturalization issues. The 1795 law was repealed eventually and replaced with something different, and that applies all the way down to our current law.

So, the 1790 law DEFINES "blood right citizenship" as "natural born citizenship." Then, along comes the 1795 law that says about these same babies born overseas regarding their citizenship: "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States"

First, it says their citizenship is a matter of RIGHT and not naturalization.

Second, it says that their citizenship DESCENDS FROM THEIR PARENT, so it is not a matter of naturalization.

So, they are citizens at birth. It is their birthRIGHT, and it is a matter of DESCENDING from an already citizen.

1. They are not "made to be natural citizens" by a naturalization process.

2. That means they already were natural citizens BY RIGHT.

So BIRTHRIGHT and NATURAL are the same thing.

[P-Marlowe]

If a woman from Buffalo went to Toronto to have an abortion, did she abort a American or a Canadian?

[Alamo-Girl]

Buuuump!

[Uncle Sham]

" So, please show us from the Constitution, relevant US Law, or Supreme Court ruling where your definition has been proven to be legal and constitutional?"

Minor versus Happersat for the definition of natural born citizen.

I also refer you to the Twentieth Amendment, Section Three for determining whether or not a President Elect failed to prove his/her eligibility to Congress. This was ignored by our present and previous congressional representation. There has been a PROVEN "failure to qualify" resulting in a usurpation of the office of President.

[Triple]

Does the Congress have the power to pass laws?

Is there a supreme court case affirming that power?

Did the congress have the power to pass laws before that supreme court case?

If the congress did have that power, before any amendment or case, then it was conferred by original intent of the framers through the constitution.

[P-Marlowe]

So Triple, when Cruz wins the nomination are you going to vote for Hillary or just sit out the election?