No, my name isn't Ted Cruz! I am not a slimy smarmy lying lawyer.
You, however, are a typical boring Teddy Bare. LOSER!
Posted on 03/14/2016 7:29:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Trump’s mother was registered to vote in Canada, which indicates she had become a Canadian citizen. At best, she was a dual citizen. If she did the proper paperwork with the US Consul (or embassy) and if she was still a citizen, then Cruz would be a naturalized citizen. If she did not do that, then he is a citizen of Canada only. On the other hand, when Cruz’ father became a citizen of this country, he could have also claimed citizenship for Cruz, which again if he did that, would make him a naturalized citizen. The fact is, as I said, at best Cruz is naturalized, but he is most certainly not natural born, and I cannot believe that we as Americans are even having this insanely stupid conversation! It does not matter how many pundits, on the left or right say otherwise, Cruz, Rubio, and Obama are not eligible according to our constitution. I hope and pray that Cruz is not nominated, and that whoever is nominated and wins, will take this issue seriously once and end this ridiculous nonsense once and for all. I suspect even Hillary, truly natural born, would be very supportive of this as well, since the Democrat nomination was stolen from her by that ineligible usurper!
I am sure disruptors really care about someone showing real class. Those hundreds of thugs in Chicago would have all played nice if Trump just would have engaged them with respect. /sarc
But you see, this guy wasn’t really a disruptor, he was a single protestor and I doubt he was a Trump person.
“No they didn’t.”
DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856)
In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [60 U.S. 393, 406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.
It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, or description of persons, who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it.
[Due to the repeal of the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1795 with the adoption of the Naturalization Act of 1802, there were no provisions for conferring naturalized citizenship upon a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents, and the U.S. Supreme Court decided in DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856) that the states also had no authority to confer U.S. citizenship such children born abroad. To remedy this situation, the Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and included provisions to confer naturalized U.S. citizenship for children born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents. The U.S. Supreme Court then decided the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was unconstitutional, so it became necessary to enact the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and re-enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Even then, the right to claim naturalized U.S. citizenship by relationship to a U.S. citizen mother was not enacted until the Cable Act of 1922, and the form of citizenship was naturalized citizenship and not natural born citizenship. If it were possible for a U.S. citizen mother to confer natural born citizenship upon her child, the Congress would not have found it necessary to enact the Cable Act to authorized naturalized U.S. citizenship for a child with a U.S. citizen mother.
Did Melania do something to you?
Has she been out there inserting herself into this election?
‘Sup with the Cruznadian fixation with the word ‘Master’?
Every time I see that it really bothers me. Something ain’t right there with that.
Yes and we all make mistakes. JimRob has since realized that and now supports Trump who actually IS a natural born American citizen.
Cruz on the other hand is a natural born CUBAN citizen who was born in Canada. Doesn’t that just SCREAM American?
Creepy.
Is this his daughter? Where are they? Are his children being dragged around like political pop-up props.
For years, I have consistently posted that children should never be used for political ends, by anyone.
Maybe he should pull that thread then.
Have you actually read what your fellow Trump supporters post or do you just run to the first Cruz post and throw an insult and leave? If you guys are so damned sure that Trump can't possibly lose why are you so angry and petty? The convention and election can't come soon enough so that maybe we will have some civility return here.
I liked his role in that movie. I do remember watching Mork and Mindy when I was but a lad. It was OK for a while, but then I started growing up.
No, my name isn't Ted Cruz! I am not a slimy smarmy lying lawyer.
You, however, are a typical boring Teddy Bare. LOSER!
Is that Sign Language?
____________________________
It means “I just picked my nose”
You are a low class trashy person.
With Cruz, I have to hold my nose.
Not to vote for him. In order to sound like him.
Poor Teddy Bares. I have already told you that I am not that smarmy slimy lying lawyer Ted Cruz. I am an American living in (almost paradise) he Philippines. I have great interest in this election, as I have four grown children and nine grandchildren that need to see Donald Trump and all of us "Make America Great Again". Seeing the family he has raised shows the depth of the man. He is not a paid mouth, like lying Teddy. You know Teddy, he is one of the Cubans the got themselves elected to the Senate so they can run for POTUS.
Teddy Bares seem to be the low class trashy ones, just like their Lying teddy.
Vote for the Winner, Donald J. Trump and help "Make America Great Again!"
It is called ire. Most of us are outraged at Cruz for siding with the thugs against Trump. Rush wants to rationalize it by saying, “Hey, it is a campaign”. He did not say that when Trump criticized Cruz over ethanol in Iowa.
How about the court in Pennsylvania ruling him eligible?
“How about the court in Pennsylvania ruling him eligible?”
The judge’s decision constitutes reversible judicial error due to it being contrary to prior U.S. Supreme Court cases and fundamental definitions in common law existing for millennia. The judge’s decision amounts to yet another judge effectively redefining the Constitution without properly obtaining an Amendment to the Constitution and redefining a common law legal definition contrary to thousands of years of precedent.
Horse crap!
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.