Posted on 02/06/2016 1:47:14 AM PST by RC one
Edited on 02/06/2016 5:34:58 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
BOSTON (AP) — Two legal scholars squared off in a public debate on Friday to settle whether Republican Ted Cruz is eligible to become president. Spoiler alert: They didn't settle it.
But the debate at Harvard Law School underscored that conflicting interpretations of the U.S. Constitution can produce different answers. The question has been in the national spotlight since Republican rival Donald Trump suggested that Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, isn't legally qualified to be president.
(Excerpt) Read more at pilotonline.com ...
All this arguing about the Cruz citizenship is a exercise in futility.
The question should be if Cruz is our nominee, will the chosen socialist of on the other side, with help of their media, challenge his right to run for president.
In the meantime, we can continue to argue what came first the chicken or the egg.
In answer to your question, yes, the Dems will challenge Ted’s eligibility, should he become the Republican nominee.
I’d like to know why everyone is concerned about Cruz and not Rubio.
Being born in Canada or being born in Florida..........quite a difference for most people.
So your point is a foreign born POTUS (Cruz, who left Canada when he was four) or a POTUS of two non-citizens (Rubio, born on american soil) would have dubious allegiance to America...?
Allegiance to America is the root argument and intent of the founders being made here...
You seem unable to address that issue...
Ok.. Here I go again. Let me be real clear. Trump/Cruz would be a done deal. For Trump, declare a 4 year stint. Cruz then taking over. With that, they can go after term limits. But this needs to be cleared up.. And while we’re all distracted, like the magician and his sexy asst.. More trouble comes from DC.. It all comes down to this, Big Gov’t, vs. smaller Gov’t.. That’s it...Well, in my opinion. I do respect everyones passion. Set on good intentions I’m sure. But again, and again, we eat our own.
Let me help a bit. Sir Winston Churchill was born of a 100% American Mother. Happens to have been outside the US to a non US Citizen. Let’s just see how the US Gov’t and Pres. JF Kennedy looked at his situation. Pay attention to the words.
Ladies and gentlemen, Members of the Congress, Members of the Cabinet, His Excellency the British Ambassador, Ambassadors of the Commonwealth, old friends of Sir Winston led by Mr. Baruch, ladies and gentlemen:.
John F. Kennedy
Proclamation Conferring Honorary U.S. Citizenship on Sir Winston Churchill
delivered 9 April 1963, Rose Garden, The White House, Washington, D.C
We gather today at a moment unique in the history of the United States.
This is the first time that the United States Congress has solemnly resolved that the President of the United States shall proclaim an honorary citizenship
***** ***********for the citizen of another country.****************** And in joining me to perform this happy duty, the Congress gives Sir Winston Churchill a distinction shared only with the Marquis de Lafayette.
In proclaiming him an honorary citizen, I only propose a formal recognition of the place he has long since won in the history of freedom and in the affections of my  and now his  fellow countrymen.
Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty. Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past. Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men’s freedom and dignity.
In the dark days and darker nights when England stood alone  and most men, save Englishmen, despaired of England’s life  he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen.
Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others. A child of the House of Commons, he became its father. Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure.
Now his stately ship of life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters  proof that courage and faith and zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts all over the globe.
By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honor him; but his acceptance honors us much more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich its name now  the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.
L8R-G8R
No, I am NOT arguing that. My argument relies on historical fact going back to the time of the founders and rejects simplistic formulation.
Perhaps it is the penumbra, like the right to an abortion.
[In answer to your question, yes,]
Actually, I knew the answer but was I posing the question to those who may still think that Cruz will win the argument through ‘legal’ avenues.
It just won’t matter because Cruz is already a damaged candidate.
If your argument relies on historical fact, then you accept the concept that a natural born citizen is defined as one who is born within the territorial jurisdiction of a country to two citizen parents.
What is forgotten the first 8 Presidents were British Colonial born in the British Colony of America, they did not become President until after the Revolutionary war.
http://www.usanewsandinformationservice.com/uspresidentsfb.html
McCain: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text
1789 was a long time ago when allegiance was a serious issue and important question since as a country we were brand new...
The war of 1812 proves allegiances was an important issue...
Last time I looked, neither Canada or Cuba were interested in seizing America though the political process..
But, 240 years forward, is their any question at all, where Ted Cruz allegiance lies...?
He was four years old when left Canada...he did not choose to be born there..
The founders intent in the eligibility clause was a question of allegiance to this country...
Is there a question at all about Cruz or Rubio...?
I think Ted Cruz bears true allegiance to himself above all else. He may have pulled the wool over your eyes but I see through his illusion. He's a manipulating lawyer that knows he isn't eligible to be POTUS and has determined to subvert the constitution in order to get what is best for him.
Allegiance to America is the root argument and intent of the founders being made here...
He's not eligible according to the constitution. that's the root argument. Get a constitutional amendment if you don't like it.
So your point is a foreign born POTUS (Cruz, who left Canada when he was four) or a POTUS of two non-citizens (Rubio, born on american soil) would have dubious allegiance to America...?
Loyalty to the country is nice but it's the constitution that we must bear and swear primary allegiance to for without our constitution we have no country. Ted Cruz does not bear allegiance to the constitution by subverting it. He is, therefore, a threat to the constitution and; thereby, to the country. hence, his allegiance to this country is, as you suggested, dubious.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed ...
The oath of enlistment.
And if you think I don't take that oath very seriously, you are mistaken.
His ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
The Madison quote is often butchered by omitting ancestors were among first settlers in the colony
It’s not logical Ted Cruz and Rubio can be natural born citizens.
I assure you, nobody has forgotten anything. If you read my first post you would know that.
In the case of "natural born", it would require an amendment to define the term. Until that happens, it will be subject to legal interpretation.
One can only assume the Founders knew that.
why did the authors of the constitution include the proviso "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," into article II, section I, clause 5?
Let's let Supreme Court Joseph Story answer that question:
It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities.
So, with this understanding, we can see what a NBC is not-It is not someone born in a foreign land or else there would have been no need to introduce the provision.
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.