Senator Cruz overcame that considerable handicap to become an authentic Christian Conservative and an honest to goodness, down to earth Texan.
 |
 |
Posted on 03/06/2013 5:30:00 PM PST by Seizethecarp
At approx 4:15 EST Hannity (radio) interviews Ted Cruz. At the end of the conversation Hannity asks Cruz if he is eligible to run for POTUS. Cruz dodges the question, but Hannity pushes. Cruz says his focus is on our country's problems and he'll leave it to others to decide if he's NBC. When Hannity keeps it going Cruz says he was born of an American mother avoiding place of birth. Hannity brings up the Canadian birth. Cruz says he had American citizenship at birth because of his mother. Hannity concludes something like "well then your'e NBC!"
Ted Cruz graduated at the top of his class at Harvard Law so he knows that only SCOTUS can ultimately clarify whether he is NBC after an inevitable challenge from Democrats or GOP primary opponents, IMO.
Cruz was born an American citizen. He was not naturalized.
Any other claim is idiocy or purposeful disinformation.
He as much as declared Obama NBC then, so I guess Sean Vanity is now the arbiter of such things, and if he says it's ok, it must be so.
The US Constitution is no longer operative (since 2008).
A Romulan from planet Zork can be installed as President of the USA (so long as he promises free transponders)...
Exactly: Since Obama anyone with a relative living in America makes them NBC.With or without a Birth Certificate.
WE have the gr8 leader Dr.Rand Paul who by the hour fights for American Justice against the DICTATOR omammy!!. God bless Dr Paul. Cruz stepped up and supported Paul today as did Cornyn. Cruz is a wonderful Canadian but cannot be President— ever. He can be dirextor of homeland security and not be a butch pervert.
Winston Churchill was an American citizen?
Make that a Karl Rove Parrot and I will agree with you
“Republicans want dirty air and water! Throw Grandma off the cliff! The Architect, Karl Rove!”
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Lol! So true,and boring!!
I’ll take the Canuk over the Kenyan any day.
badges? er........ Papers? Papers? You want papers!? We don’t need no stinkin’ Papers!!
LOL, I really can’t take it anymore.
Senator Cruz overcame that considerable handicap to become an authentic Christian Conservative and an honest to goodness, down to earth Texan.
|
|
ditto
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.