Posted on 08/27/2013 10:44:47 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
We need more like Ted Cruz. He is a true American success story and is unafraid to stand up with his convictions.
Cruz over the RINOS!
Go Ted, Go!
All flawed decisions and you know that. Why do you support Obama?
Really? Are you that incapable of making reasonable extrapoliations? 240 years ago America was a vague idea with no history. OF COURSE they had to assume divided loyalties with a brand new nation. Now its a bit different. What a moronic idiotic shallow non thinking question.
You are right. One must be a Citizen at Birth by Nature of one's status at the time of Birth. It has nothing to do with where you are born. It never did.
In that sense and by all the laws of the United States of America, Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen.
Now unless you can show me some LEGAL PRECEDENT that would exclude Ted Cruz from presidential eligibility, you are doing nothing on this forum but acting as a disruptor.
So either put up or shut up.
No court has EVER RULED that Obama is a natural born citizen. It’s never gotten anywhere near that far.
It bothers me that people make comments about things they know very little about and have not paid the appropriate level of attention.
Taht’s what I thought...meaning post 62 and 63 are indeed applicable and speak to this faux conundrum.
Appreciate the ping.
I heard Mark make these statements that are the basis for this thread.
They weren’t intended to be a highbrow treatise on this subject, although he could’ve chosen that way. Just a few off-the-cuff, common sense remarks and the example he gave of the silliness supposing an American mother goes on a trip and her baby decides to be born while she’s “over the line” somewhere, she just has to forget the possibility that her child could ever grow up and become President.
I’ve used that type of example. That example doesn’t suffice for proof but it gets the subject percolating as to what is the reason for having natural born citizens be eligible? Obviously it was NOT to stop a candidacy of someone who’s birth moment came when his American mom was visiting or temporarily working across a boundary line.
But those who are determined to will claim that this is ALL Mark knows about the issue and he’s just a big nothing goofball about it.
Of course not. That’s ridiculous. But common sense and real life examples aren’t bad to percolate the issue into the land of REALVILLE that Rush talks about.
Too bad some are immune and would rip apart this conservative movement over this if they can.
When as Jim rightly reminds, we are conservatives, revere the Constitution AND are fighting like the Alamo’s last stand (had to get a Texan reference in) to save this Republic.
Well, Cruz knows what the Supreme Court knows and what both know is that the Supreme Court has no power to disqualify presidential candidates. He knows and the Court knows that under our Constitution, it is the electors who select our presidents and thus it is the electors who are empowered and obligated to apply the Constitution's eligibility standards to the candidates. The founders did not provide for any judicial review of the elector's decisions.
The Supreme Court has not been evading its responsibility to rule on Obama's qualifications. It has no power to do so.
So, Cruz knows that his birther critics will try to do an end run around the electoral college and seek to impose their anti-Cruz will by requesting help from federal courts. Cruz is inviting them to try to do so.
People who favor the narrow NBC interpretation that they trace to Vattel should make their pitch to electors and to the voters who select our electors. That's who decides these things. ;-)
We’ve been through this before.
Section 301(a)(7) says Cruz is an automatic citizen at birth:
***(a)SEC. 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of w’hom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who,
prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States ‘ or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less ‘ than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age “ of fourteen years: Provided^ That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements “ of this paragraph.
***
Apparently a lot of these trolls seem to think that unless you are born within the boundaries of the 50 states that somehow you can’t be a Natural Born Citizen. Or if only one of your parents is a Citizen that you can’t be a Natural Born Citizen or whatever floats their boat.
Apparently Cruz’s father came here from Cuba and was a legal resident of the United States at the time he married Cruz’s Mother who was born in Delaware to Citizen parents. They were living in Canada while doing seismic testing for his father’s Austin Texas based company and were never permanent residents of Canada but worked off a US Passport and Visa.
Ted’s only connection to Canada was that that he was born there while his parents were doing business abroad. Neither of his parents were ever Candadian Citizens or permanent residents of Canada. His situation is no different from that of a citizen soldier being stationed in Germany or Japan who has a baby in that country.
This is really becoming a major distraction. These people are bent on destroying Ted Cruz and creating dissension among the conservatives. I must conclude that they are carrying the water for the MSM and the GOP-e and the Democrats. I don’t think Free Republic is the place for people to carry water for those entities.
It bothers me that people make comments about things they know very little about and have not paid the appropriate level of attention.
Have you been paying attention?
The Supreme Court has never even hinted that it has the power to disqualify any presidential candidate on eligibility grounds. That is the job of the electors.
For five years now, you have watched the Supreme Court justices voluntarily attend both of Obama's inaugural festivities. The Chief Justice has twice volunteered to administer the oath of office to Obama. Do you think that this Court thinks that it has the power to rule on Obama's eligibility?
The Constitution is pretty clear about how we choose our presidents and it does not provide for any role for the Supreme Court .
Not true; I suggest you do some reading on the history of the Constitution. English Common Law formed the basis of much of the Constitution. Justice Scalia, for one, disagrees with you, as do several other justices. Justice Joseph Story
And so has been the uniform doctrine in America ever since the settlement of the colonies. The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.Chief Justice Howard Taft wrote
"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted."From the WKA case:
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151." [emphasis added]See also See also Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844),
The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. [emphasis added]
The term “natural born citizen” is alien to common law; they had native born subjects. At the time natural born citizen was understood to mean one that was a citizen by birth regardless of where he was born because both parents were citizens.
Nope. See Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813)
And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
And some of those here appear to be taking positions along our flank and taking pot shots at our soldiers.
Some seem to prefer to be on the side of our enemies and are using this issue as a wedge to try to divide us and then allow the enemy to conquer us.
This is a non-issue. There is not a single court in America that will rule that Cruz is not eligible. So this whole issue is nothing but an attempt by some to sew the seeds of dissension among the troops. It is time we weed out the traitors and continue our march forward.
President Washington March 15th, 1790:
And may the members of your society in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity. G. Washington
What law are you referencing?
I can assure you that I do not carry water for the GOPe. Please review my posting history, you will see that I detest them, Boehner, Jeb Bush, Rove, McCain, et al. I have been quite critical of Boehner in particular.
Sure on passing issues/news I throw out one-liners. On important issues though, such as immigration, Obama’s ineligibility, as well as Cruz’s, I try to present facts. If you disagree with them fine, present facts to refute.
I like Cruz. He is articulate. He stands up. He is conservative. Pro-life, Austrian economics. What’s not to like? We have to remain grounded. The man hasn’t been a Senator for a year. Let’s keep our heads and be sure that he is eligible.
Others on this thread have posted the possibility that Cruz is being clever, trying to smoke out Obama’s ineligibility. I certainly hope so. But I have reservations that is the case.
There are some on this thread who are Obama supporters. They have been promoting Cruz. Some do so quite enthusiastically, no doubt for nefarious purposes. This has also been alluded to by other posters.
We’ve all lamented that Obama wasn’t vetted. But now that potential candidates on our side are being vetted here, some want to shut down debate. That would be a shame. If you disagree with something I post, present facts to refute. If they’re convincing, great! But don’t try to shut down debate.
Here’s an example of what I think of Boehner.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3045840/posts?page=7#7
Have you considered the possibility that the Supreme Court has read the Constitution, has determined that the Constitution empowers electors (and not courts) to select our presidents and has determined that the Supreme Court has no power to disqualify presidential candidates on eligibility grounds and has no power to overrule the decisions of the electoral college? Is it possible that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to provide no role for the Supreme Court in selecting presidents?
He is by all measures eligible!
All the arguments have been made on both sides and the fact of the matter is that No one has ever made a credible argument that he is not eligible. Just a bunch of esoteric nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with correct constitutional interpretation or original intent or the likelihood that there will be any viable challenge to his eligibility.
Those who, in the face of that reality, continue to harp on this subject and spam the threads with their own twisted and totally off the wall interpretations that cast doubt on Cruz's eligibility are doing nothing more than creating division among the conservative troops on this forum over the eligibility of the most Reaganesque potential candidate that has come around since Reagan. But there are those who in their own twisted minds would rather see Hillary Clinton elected than to cast a vote for Ted Cruz because he happened to be born in Canada while his parents were on United States issued work Visas for their FAMILY OWNED AUSTIN TEXAS BASED BUSINESS!
Ted Cruz has no more allegiance or ties to Canada than I do to Poland. Neither of his parents had any Canadian citizenship or permanent residency. He is no more a Canadian than John McCain was a Panamanian.
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.