Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

[Ira_Louvin]

Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.

President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.

“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.

[Lakeshark]

Barack Obama is also over. When IRS and Benghazi finally become above-the-fold news in the next couple weeks, it’ll really be over for the ‘Uniter’.

I'd love to see you be 100% correct......

[DiogenesLamp]

This really isn't just your interpretation. It's pretty much the understanding of almost everybody.

Everybody Who's Ignorant, Lying or stupid. Yup, that pretty much catches all the people who agree with you.

Why did we pass the 14th amendment Jeff? Why Jeff? Why did we NEED the 14th Amendment Jeff?

Tell us Jeff! We all want to hear your explanation why we created a Constitutional AMENDMENT which says the exact same thing as existing law. (According to You.)

Why didn't it apply to Indians Jeff? Why Jeff? Tell Us all why the 14th amendment didn't change existing law, but somehow didn't affect Indians who were born here.

Why do you want to exempt "Anchor Babies" Jeff? They meet your criteria, but you don't want to count them. Are you a Hypocrite Jeff? You need to eat your "anchor baby" soup Jeff. You ordered it, now you need to drink up every last bit of your Anchor baby soup Jeff!

Why do you want to exclude Anchor babies Jeff? Why Jeff?

Lucy! You got some splainin to do!

[Clay Moore]

“When IRS and Benghazi finally become above-the-fold news in the next couple weeks, it’ll really be over for the ‘Uniter’.”

What makes you think that is going to happen? It’s old news, no-one in the SRM cares so it is as good as spiked.

Fact is anyone in this regime could commit violent felonies at a live televised press conference and nothing would happen. It would be forgotten in 2 days, overshadowed by the latest outrage.

[Smokeyblue]

Well those are some good questions but you know he’ll just post a WALL OF TEXT and then twist it to whatever he want’s it to be.

Baffle them with bulls####. Overwhelm them with nonsensical arguments and KNOW that enough of the SHALLOW non-thinkers will fall for it.

Axelrod would be proud.

[little jeremiah]

Also, if anyone with a sincere interest reads the comments, it’s very clear who makes sense and is sincere, and who doesn’t make sense and is supporting 0buttatollah.

[1rudeboy]

It's your argument, idiot. You so stupid that I have to do your research for you?

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

It's no coincidence. Starting in 2003, no less than eight attempts to redefine or eliminate the Constitution's requirement in A2S1C5 that the President be a Natural Born Citizen were made. All failed, and we STILL ended up with this dude. The fix, as they say, is in.

[1rudeboy]

Why the heck would I want to read your profile page? Did you say something intelligent?

[DiogenesLamp]

You might be overlooking the fact that large numbers of conservative voters stayed home. I guess they got what they wanted, eh ?

My understanding is that assertion is a false rumor. Once the final tallies were in, Romney supposedly exceeded the number of votes won by McCain.

Mitt Romney votes= 60,932,152.
John McCain votes = 59,948,323

I guess that gang of ruthless facts beats to death your beautiful theory.

Few people stayed home, the Media cheated, and so did Obama's team.

[Jeff Winston]

Tell us Jeff! We all want to hear your explanation why we created a Constitutional AMENDMENT which says the exact same thing as existing law. (According to You.)

I'll give you the same reasons the sponsors of the 14th Amendment gave. They saw American-born black people being denied the status and rights of citizenship, even though they understood that such people were citizens. So they passed a law to make it absolutely clear that black Americans were US citizens, and had rights too.

Why didn't it apply to Indians Jeff? Why Jeff? Tell Us all why the 14th amendment didn't change existing law, but somehow didn't affect Indians who were born here.

Again, something we've been over many, many times. Because Indians in tribes were not in American society. They were members of separate nations with their own governments, and our laws did not apply to them except to the extent that they interacted with our society.

If two Indians left their tribes and their tribal government and moved to Pittsburg and had a baby there, that baby was a natural born citizen.

Why do you want to exempt "Anchor Babies" Jeff? They meet your criteria, but you don't want to count them. Are you a Hypocrite Jeff? You need to eat your "anchor baby" soup Jeff. You ordered it, now you need to drink up every last bit of your Anchor baby soup Jeff!

Since it took much more time, expense and danger to travel internationally than it does now, anchor babies were not contemplated in the historical context that gave rise to the phrase "natural born citizen." I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for excluding them from citizenship.

Now I've explained some things. How about you explain something.

The vast majority of our early legal authorities all go one way when it comes to the meaning of natural born citizenship.

Why do you adamantly ignore or brush off all of our best early legal experts, to instead push the claims of folks like David Ramsay (who was directly contradicted 36 to 1 by James Madison, other Framers, and our first House) and Samuel Roberts (who cited no authority and had very little of his own)?

[DiogenesLamp]

Disregard anything from Mr. Rogers. He will overwhelm you with nonsensical crap and commentary from all his favorite incorrect legal experts.

Do your own research, and pay no attention to what lawyers say. Look to what the founders themselves said and did. Contemplate the fact that the Children of British Loyalists born in the United States were regarded as British Subjects by both sides.

Recall also that Slaves did not receive citizenship from having been born here (which they would have according to the English Law theory) until the 14th amendment. Indians were not recognized as citizens until the Indian citizenship act of 1924.

I have just given you probably a hundred million examples of cases where the "English Law" theory is wrong. People born here were not automatically citizens. Laws had to be changed to MAKE them citizens.

[1rudeboy]

That's a nice way of saying, "I can't refute the facts you've posted, so I will make a show of ignoring them, while using insult in an attempt to discredit you and the authorities you posted."

Bears repeating. I'd thought I'd mention: this whole "agenda" thing cracks me up. So let's stipulate--you have an agenda, and so do I, apparently (now). The only ones without an agenda appear to be the birthers (again, just for lack of another term).

So let's consider: a percentage of the birthers on FR actually are DNC plants meant to make birthers look like idiots. If so, they are doing a fine job of it.

[3Fingas]

Such is the state of affairs, it may take a natural born Canadian, who may or may not be eligible for office, to fix our problems. Sad state of affairs, we are in.

[Smokeyblue]

Here you go lazy, ignorant, rude ...

The argument was if American citizenship IN AND OF ITSELF was enough then why did they have to give him something he already had? McCain was an UNDISPUTED American citizen.

Of course this resolution is NON-BINDING and useless but they went out of their way which is CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.

Resolution 511 McCain born to American citizens

Here is full text of Resolution 511:

S. Res. 511

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States;

Whereas the term “natural born Citizen”, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term “natural born Citizen”;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

[Jeff Winston]

Well those are some good questions but you know he’ll just post a WALL OF TEXT and then twist it to whatever he want’s it to be.

Same challenge as elsewhere.

I've posted a wealth of material. Find one misrepresentation - just one - and prove it.

Either that, or take your meds.

[DiogenesLamp]

Defining the meaning of terms used in the Constitution is exactly the role envisioned by the Founders for the Supremes.

Yes, we see how well they do that with the Obamacare law which they recently upheld as a "tax." Also, we see how well they've done with Kelo, with Roe, and with Wickard.

Are you sure you want to rely on that pack of kooks?

If they were to rule, it would at least settle the issue legally. Though doubtless not all would agree with the ruling.

Those who are correct, would remain so, and those who are incorrect would still be incorrect. The only difference is one opinion (Most likely the incorrect one) would be enforced with government guns and boots.

[MamaTexan]

The purpose of my quotation was to show that the grandfather clause wasn't passed to make George Washington eligible.

Yes, it was, because they were natural-born British subjects.

YOU need to quit pretending the grandfather clause MADE someone a citizen...automatically. It was a conscious choice called the Right of Election.

Aliens by election may then be shortly described to be those subjects of the crown of Great-Britain on the fourth day of July, 1776, who have elected to remain such, and have not since become, and continued to be, citizens of the United States, or some one of them.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries

-----

and it REQUIRED a witnessed, legal filing by the person wishing to become a citizen :

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.

---

What's it to you anyway, Jeff..... by your own words

I frankly don't care one way or the other. It makes no difference at all to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

If country of birth determines ‘nbc’ then Cruz is a nbc of Canada!
If the citizenship of 1 parent determines the child’s citizenship then Cruz is a Canadian due to his father, AND, a USA citizen due to his mother!

Cruz's father is Cuban, not Canadian. Cruz can claim citizenship from Canada, US, or Cuba. He's a threefer. (Like Obama.)

[MamaTexan]

Oh, my! I’m not so sure I’m quite deserving of such gallant words, but thank you kindly!

[DiogenesLamp]

Writing to Jeff, MHGinTN said:

You are seriously ill, mentally. You declare things that are patently false to be true because you've declared it, regardless of the facts.

I will hereafter refrain from posting to you on any topic at FR. Don't post to me, don't ping me to your idiotic kneepad wearing servitude to the grand lie that is little barry bastard boy. Your little demigod racist, Barack Obama, is an obscenity to humankind in general and to America specifically. He is a liar, just like you.

You have no regard for the truth in your purposely convoluted posts, while at the same time declaring your opinions to be not only the only truth but the only allowable perspective on the facts.

You are a nuisance, a liar, and an ass. Bray in someone else's direction, I think you stink the place up. It is alinsky tactics like you use that give some threads on FR a bad taste. You do not deal in truth, you spew your specious opinion of what written words mean knowing full well that you are twisting the meaning sometimes 180 degrees to fit your deception in service to the lying freak now occupying the White House ... occasionally, when he and his brood get back from a vacation.

You have been refuted time and again and consistently refuse to recognize your deception has been exposed. And now you will, as in typical fashion of alinsky vermin, demand that a list of refutations be posted or else you will declare that the charge is false. Buzz off, you obamaroid freak, I have zero respect for anything you post in service to the Obama lies.

Nothing to add, you pretty much nailed it. I just wanted to see it posted again. :)