Try the birth certificate. Note the name of the hospital at the bottom. Do not quote fact check as real facts, unless you have independent corroboration, they suck for truth.
Posted on 03/09/2013 8:04:06 AM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Now we are finally getting somewhere. Just like Obama is ineligible technically because his fathers British Nationality 'governed' his birth status in 1961, Ted Cruz is ineligible too. Fox News has confirmed it and rightly so. Sean Hannity made a huge blunder the other day and declared Ted Cruz a natural born citizen because he was born to a American mother in Canada. He was so wrong. Cruz is a 14th Amendment U.S. 'statutory' (not natural born) citizen which is something completely different than a Article 2 Section 1 Constitutional natural born Citizen which is explicitly designed only for the presidency by the framers.
All anyone has to do to make you look like a liar and a fool is to provide one. The Thread above has already done so. A smarter argument would have been to claim that the BULK of evidence is on your side. (It isn't, but it is a more plausible claim.) To say there is NO evidence against you is just stupid.
I'm not claiming there is not a single figure in history who has made your argument. There are a few. But they are VERY, VERY few, their arguments are weak, they generally failed to carry the point, and they are completely insignificant compared with the entire vast weight of history and law.
Article VI, US Constitution
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Article I, Section 8
(Congress shall have the power)...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Article II, Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Well, you are making two arguments.
First, Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did have American citizenship at the time of his birth IN THE UNITED STATES.
Second, Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen because his mother, an American citizen, married a non-citizen, and temporarily moved to Canada, where Ted was born.
You are drawing comparisons to non-American citizens, who move to the United States for a few months before their child’s birth, have they baby in the US, then move back to their home country.
If you don’t see a distinction, I don’t know what to tell you.
Rubio lived the rest of his life in the United States, and Cruz moved back at the age of four.
You cite a case, from the Roe V Wade court, as proof, when the case doesn’t even discuss the issue of natural born citizen.
And it’s not really an ad-hominem court. That was one of the most destructive Supreme Courts in history. That’s pretty factual, if you hold conservative beliefs.
This argument about English common law is quite silly too. In my young law school career, I’ve encountered numerous cases where an American court cites to a English court in delivering its opinion.
Some of you act like we completely severed from England in every aspect.
There's that claim again. Reminds me of Clinton's "I did NOT have sex with that woman."
I no longer have time to fool with this. I will drub you later.
Wrong.
Gosh. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Have you never even read US v. Wong Kim Ark?
Gosh.
All aliens on English soil, with the permission of the King, were in “actual obedience” to the King.
And their children, born on English soil, were natural born subjects.
And as the Court in Wong said: The same rule ALWAYS applied. First in England, then in the Colonies, and then in the United States after independence.
The child born within the country, of alien parents, was a NATURAL BORN SUBJECT for as long as we used the word “subject,” and then when we changed “subject” to “citizen,” that child then became a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The Supreme Court is absolutely clear about this.
That first sentence should read “Rubio is not a natural born citizen because his parents did NOT have American citizenship at the time of his birth in the United States.
It's called Presumption of Fact.
Go play your little games with yourself.
This FoxNews piece doesn’t surprise me since Cruz does not fit into their ideal profile for a candidate, their candidate that is. FoxNews has become a caricature of itself. It takes itself a bit too seriously. Just becoming another tentacle of the drive-by media.
This argument is moot anyway. Two Presidents thus far, Obama and Arthur, have not met this definition of “natural born citizen.”
No court in this land would define “natural born citizen” in this way because of the uncertainty and upheaval it would create.
Try the birth certificate. Note the name of the hospital at the bottom. Do not quote fact check as real facts, unless you have independent corroboration, they suck for truth.
Check. I understand. Drub ya later, then. Have a good night.
But my point is that the entire heavy weight of all history and law is against this claim.
And there is simply no credible evidence to support it. Just a big pile of twisted quotes, misreadings, and birther wishful thinking.
It's not a matter of uncertainty or upheaval. The claim that natural born citizen takes birth on us soil plus citizen parents is simply, flat out false.
people with similar birth situations (outside the US) such as McCain and George Romney would have been eligible if they had won.
______________________________________
Ah big old NOOOOOOOOOOOO
the 2 situations are no way similar...
McCains parents were in Panama because his under the jurisdiction thereof father who loved America was sent there by the US military...
George Romneys grandfather who hated America had turned his back on the US and was an ex-patriot and immigrated to Mexico to stay forever because he was against the laws of the US and refused to lived under the jurisdiction thereof...
the Romney family was there more than 20 years...thats not just a visit..some Romneys still live there..
George was born in Mexico and was about 5 when the Romneys illegally entered the US because of the revolution down in Mexico...
(They only left Mexico because of the revolution...the intention was never to return)
Willard even boasted that his father was an illegal alien when he gave his speech at the GOP convention...
No, while McCain could have a case for eligibility,
George Romney never could have...
when the Romneys mingled amongst hundreds of genuine returning American tourists and snuck into the US they never showed any papers or admitted they were Mexicans and had not just been visiting for a few days like the rest of the Americans fleeing north across the border..
George never became a naturizalized American citizen...
so his son Willard was not a NBC when he was born...
try that one out for size...
Oh, I’m in complete agreement with me. I just think the whole argument is moot. Even if their definition was correct, which it is not, TWO presidents have already failed to meet this qualifications.
I’m not even a fan of O’Reilly, but I do agree with him about this birther movement. It brings down the credibility of the legitimate criticisms of Obama.
Who was Louisa Johnson’s uncle? No one with the surname Johnson signed the Declaration of Independence. Her father was an American merchant living in London at the time she was born—he was appointed a consul later, after Britain recognized US independence. She grew up in England and in France and was married in London—I don’t know if she had been to the US before 1801. But I think having a citizen father would have made her a US citizen. Reportedly John Adams initially was opposed to John Quincy marrying a “foreigner.”
Go play your little games with yourself.
There is only "presumption of fact" if I don't have evidence to back the facts. But I do.
And you obviously know this. You are obviously FEARFUL of agreeing to the PROPOSITION I have made.
Why are you fearful?
You are fearful because you really, really WANT to believe Vattel's book controls the definition of "natural born citizen." Because you have a vested interest in that.
For one thing, you've said it. Publicly. So if I'm right, then if you are honest, you will have to admit that you were wrong. And admitting you were wrong is a bit, well, unpleasant. Embarassing, maybe.
I understand that.
But how about this? It is better to have admitted you were wrong, and to then be correct, than it is to stay stuck in your wrongness.
Isn't it?
And do you know what? All of us are wrong from time to time. It's no disgrace. ALL of us are wrong sometimes. I am, too.
Or would you rather be stuck on wrong?
Please tell me. Would you rather be stuck on wrong, stubbornly denying reality? Or would you rather know the truth, and be on the side of the truth?
It isn't totally nonsense, but when people begin to seriously believe that the voters and their electors ( who rule on candidate qualifications) are going to be swayed by references to the mind games of some Swiss elitist who wore wigs and powdered his nose over 200 years ago, they are beginning to lose touch with reality. None of that baloney will ever matter to voters or their electors and they (and only they) will continue to have the final say on a candidate's qualifications to be president, just as they did in 2008, just as they did in 2012 and just as they did in every single presidential election prior to 2008.
None of these people with all of their musty old foreign books and theories has ever proven the birthplace or paternity of any of our past presidents and none of them has the slightest idea how they might go about proving (to the extent required by their own impossible standards of proof) where Obama was born or the identity of his father or where Cruz was born or the identity of his father.
If Cruz runs, they can present their evidence and cite their ancient treatises and, as always, the president will be selected by the voters and their electors after they have considered all of the candidates' qualifications. And, there will be people who will bitch and moan that the people made another mistake without ever coming to terms with the reality that the people and their electors will undoubtedly make some mistakes. But, we'll get by like we always have gotten by.
And, Obama will go down in history as our first Hawaiian president. ;-)
Such refreshing candor, lol.
Unfortunately, true.
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.