Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
Man (I guess), I just came here looking for some info. You gave me a congressional resolution. If that doesn’t prove imbecility, then . . . .
Looks to me like he’s an illegal alien just like obama!
No. You did not come here for info you came because you don’t have the balls to state your true opinion.
Come on. Out with it.
Nope. You’ll just troll on troll boy.
Back to the “agenda” thing, I see.
Troll on troll boy. Round and around you go.
Well there ya go, being all logical. :-)
Sometimes they pass AMENDMENTS to make people into citizens who were NOT citizens before. How's that 14th Amendment explanation you've been working at coming along? No doubt you will include a bunch more truncated quotes from Bingham or Turnbull in it.
It's exactly what our Senators and Representatives did when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and declared that black people born in the United States were US citizens.
Very glad you mentioned that, what DOES that act say? Why here it is, it says this:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, ...
So what does this mean? That if you are born here SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER that means you are not a citizen?
Now who would have put that in there? Don't they know that it is in conflict with the British Law Jeff is always yammering on about?
The sponsors generally said that the law was simply a declaration of what they already understood the law to be. It just needed to be clarified, so that no one could deny it.
Of course it was. Prior law EXCLUDED the children of Foreign Fathers from citizenship as well. (Unless said fathers expressed intent to naturalize, of course.) Yes, the civil rights act of 1866 was expressing the understanding of existing law, but with the caveat that the congress would explicitly apply the law to a class of people to which it had not heretofore been applicable.
Oh, and I love your posts too just like MHGinTN.
I know your material is top shelf if ever needed for rebuttals. I’m always glad to see people like yourself posting the information for the lurkers.
You've been shown to be wrong hundreds of times. It is no longer worthwhile to do so. If you haven't learned the first hundred times, a hundred and one won't do the trick either.
You aren't trying to learn, you are trying to impose a false doctrine. Alinskyesque is an apt description of you and your tactics.
Good luck with President Hillary then in 2017.
Funny that, someone who tried to avoid birther (this time, the term is intended) threads, is a troll at this point.
That's ok, brother . . . impeach Obama, disqualify Cruz . . . let me know how that works out for ya'.
How did that alternate plan work out for you and ole Mitt?
Yeah, I thought so. Go Antibirthers!
Wow. Couldn’t imagine how Romney could be introduced to this thread, but I wasn’t open-minded enough.
Dude. I thought you were an obnoxious troll regardless of the topic.
Feel better?
As well as those who never had one, but didn't let that stop them from opining.
Not unless you tell me your previous screen-name.
Rotfl.
Jeff must be having his period.
Don’t have one. I’ve been here since 2008. I’ve read tons of topics and posts.
Sorry, you are not my cup of tea.
You’ll get over it.
Sure, sure. It’s all ok.
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.