Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 741-756 next last
To: little jeremiah
I am not attacking Cruz, just standing up for the truth.

2 + 2 = 5, eh?

421 posted on 07/21/2013 5:28:49 PM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Because a naturalized citizen is made a citizen by the laws of Man, which is by statute or edict. This is a citizen AT birth.

A NATURAL born citizen is made such by the Laws of Nature. It is inherited by blood, so the citizenship of the child follows the citizenship of the NATURAL parents. This is a citizen BY birth.

Ted Cruz is not a natural-born citizen.

Only 142 posts to get to the truth of the matter.

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

422 posted on 07/21/2013 5:33:09 PM PDT by Godebert (No Person Except a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
And here is another of those strings of verbal vomit for which Jeff is so famous. You might as well have posted this:

It has the same intellectual content, but is far more accurate in conveying your intent. Indeed, you are a pansy a$$ed British Woman spewing British regurgitant at us.

423 posted on 07/21/2013 5:33:22 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
Vattel, I knew, but Ramsey is new to me. Thanks so much for the link!
424 posted on 07/21/2013 5:36:22 PM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as defined by the Law of Nature, not a 'person' as defined by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

Cruz is smart enough to set this trap. The left can’t dig into this without allowing us to dig into Zullo’s findings. Discovery sucks for the guilty.

This is a classic example of a pre-emptive strike.

Like I said, I’d vote Ted (again) because the guy has ROLLBACK on his mind. And he knows how to do it.


425 posted on 07/21/2013 5:37:57 PM PDT by txhurl ('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion and your citations.

Thank him? He is the most obnoxious source of wrong information that you can find on this message board! He is simply like the sheep in "Animal Farm" who constantly drone on with their inane message. "Four legs good, two legs Baaaad!"

Jeff is a cult kook. He advocates the most liberal weak interpretation of article II of which can be possibly conceived. He advocates a position that DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH the purpose for which it was intended; the exclusion of foreign influence in the executive branch of government.

Jeff is attempting to mislead anyone who will listen into accepting a weak, paradoxical and silly definition for "natural citizen." He had done nothing for which to be thanked, indeed, he is a constant disservice to us all.

426 posted on 07/21/2013 5:40:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
Ok, so it was a resolution. Non-binding. Just theater.

Proves your point how, exactly?

427 posted on 07/21/2013 5:42:07 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
Unfortunately, if Cruz declines to run or tries a run and is found to be constitutionally ineligible to serve as president, we'll be stuck with another neo-con (Jeb Bush, most likely) and probably another lost presidential election.

Our own political expediency is not the basis upon which we should uphold our laws. It is unfortunate that these circumstances exist, because Ted Cruz might very well be a very good choice for President.

At this point, if he can secure the nomination, I would vote for him, though I am certain his candidacy violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.

428 posted on 07/21/2013 5:43:44 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Eh, slow book sales, huh?


429 posted on 07/21/2013 5:44:57 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

430 posted on 07/21/2013 5:45:52 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas; All
There was one such case where standing was found, the Hollister case, and still the Supreme Court did not take it. The U.S. District Court ruled that there was a failure to state a claim and the Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit) affirmed without comment.

What is to prevent the Democrats, who seem to be more favored by the courts, from going after Cruz successfully. All of our good judges know that the One is above the law and have adoped the Rule of Ridicule where he is concerned but it is doubtful if they would ignore the Constitution in favor of a Republican, particularly an effective one, in the same way.

431 posted on 07/21/2013 5:46:08 PM PDT by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Once again, it's considered common courtesy not to talk about people behind their back.

Once again, I will point out that you are undeserving of common courtesy. You are a liar, and a troublemaker who adds nothing useful to any of these discussions. All you do is sow discord and confusion, and people are sick of looking at your repetitious false and presumptuous assertions. (crap.)

432 posted on 07/21/2013 5:46:11 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

There is no evidence that she was ever married to anyone but Lolo Soetoro.


433 posted on 07/21/2013 5:51:14 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (If you're FOR sticking scissors in a female's neck and sucking out her brains, you are PRO-WOMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

LOL ... I love it when a plan comes together.


434 posted on 07/21/2013 5:52:21 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Are you being intentionally dense? Yep, but you are a tard regardless.

Circular logic little games you tards like to play. You must be a lawyer.

I’ve stated the argument and you can’t refute it.

One last time.

Question: Why if American citizenship is IN AN OF ITSELF is the prerequisite, then why did they have to pass a NON-BINDING resolution to give McCain something he already possessed? American citizenship. Clearly, he was not like Arnold S. who is naturalized.

Anwser: Because it’s not JUST American citizenship it’s NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP

Thanks for playing.


435 posted on 07/21/2013 5:52:24 PM PDT by Smokeyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: Reddon
just like we did Sarah Palin.

That wasn't us, it was McStain and his people, along with the Obama people.

436 posted on 07/21/2013 5:52:51 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
I will point out three things about the Wong Kim Ark decision.

It does not use the words "Natural born" in the ruling. Ink and paper were not so dear that they could not have added the words if they wanted to. Like the authors of the 14th amendment, those words were INTENTIONALLY omitted.

2. It makes no mention whatsoever of the War of 1812, the focus of which was very much about the difference between an American citizen and a British Subject. It has been alleged that they intentionally omitted it because it did not support the conclusion to which they had already made up their mind.

3. The Wong court is the exact same court that ruled "separate but equal" in the Plessy v Ferguson decision a year earlier. This was one of the most infamous decisions in Supreme Court History, and the Judgement of the court was this: Not all "citizens" are created equal. Some are more equal than others.

I suspect that the Wong decision was a walkback from the Plessy decision, which provoked an outcry. They went too far in the one direction, so to compensate, they went too far in the other.

437 posted on 07/21/2013 5:59:35 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

At this point, if he can secure the nomination, I would vote for him, though I am certain his candidacy violates both the spirit and the letter of the law.


We’re not going to restore the rule of law by allowing the RATS to continue in their infestation of America. Let the RATS make their case and expose themselves. Discovery’s a bitch, and may very well invalidate everything zero’s done, which you notice is mainly by EOs. Ted knows what he’s doing, support him.


438 posted on 07/21/2013 6:00:53 PM PDT by txhurl ('The DOG ate my homework. That homework, too. ALL my homework. OK?' - POSHITUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Blah blah blah. The Wind is blowing through Jeff's hollow head again.

439 posted on 07/21/2013 6:02:00 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Smokeyblue
Look, you are the one suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy. From where I sit, it simply was politics.

So if you want to take the next step (not likely, because I suspect you are an intellectual paraplegic), let's see who proposed the resolution, who supported it, and who voted for it.

Then, when you've tied those strings together (and added some historical context--but I can only hope), you can leap-frog to your contention that this resolution regarding McCain has bearing on Cruz, or Obama for that matter.

440 posted on 07/21/2013 6:04:16 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 741-756 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson