Posted on 05/03/2016 5:16:13 AM PDT by iontheball
In the midst of questions arising as to why presidential candidate Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas, has produced no documentation to support his claim that he was born a U.S. citizen in Canada in December 1970, author, former congressional candidate and former Hawaii resident Miki Booth provided a copy of her birth certificate, prepared by the American consulate in Sapporo, Japan, indicating that she was a U.S. citizen born abroad.
The certificate was sent to The Post & Email by surface mail and returned in the same manner.
Booth was born on December 18, 1949 in Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan while her father, Thomas William Snyder, Jr., was stationed there in the U.S. Marine Corps.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
“I was shocked to see that FR was supporting Cruz “
Me too! A concerted effort to destroy the clause and with it the constitution and freepers were cheering. Unbelievable!
How about Alexander Hamilton?
“You posted nothing of substance there Mr. Know-it-all. First off, that isn’t the complete reference for the FAM. Second, the FAM isn’t the law. It is only a guide printed by some State Dept employee for State Dept employees. It isn’t a legal reference.”
There you go with yet another lie. First, if you had bothered to read the quoted information and/or honestly acknowledged what it had to say, you would have encountered the U.S. Supreme Court decision and its observation: United State v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized....”
Furthermore the quoted material references the U.S. Code that serves as the statutory authorities for the content of the U.S. State Department Manual.
Liars typically do not like it when they are told they are an Emperor with no clothes on like some snotty nosed know-it-all child along the king’s nude parade route.
Could be, though Ted has shown a remarkable capability for self-delusion, so he could think he is. What I've said all along is that there are bonafide constitutional experts with legitimate arguments on both sides, and no precedents. Until SCOTUS makes a direct ruling, nobody really can say for certain what the law is. Cruz however has a much weaker case than Obama does, unless someone could prove Obama was born outside the USA.
That is not correct! The Naturalization Act of 1795 superseded the Naturalization Act of 1790 and eliminated the erroneous phrase "shall be considered as natural born citizens" that had been mistakenly included by the clerk who transcribed it for the First US Congress according to James Madison's own words.
SCOTUS has ruled on the nature of citizenship for those born abroad, although this is not the same as defining NBC, it does define a class of citizen that is not NBC.
Cruz knows the precedents. I think he is a sociopath, and has calculated (probably correctly) that no court is going to educate the public on the meaning of NBC, plus the weight of legal scholarship is that NBC is whatever Congress says it is. That's as valid as the weight of legal scholarship finding the RKBA to be a collective right.
Thanks.
If we are to avert civil war and Jihad, there must be mass deportation.
My eldest daughter was born in a U.S. Army Hospital in Stuttgart Germany and my youngest Daughter was born in a U.S. Army Hospital in Seoul Korea. Both have CRBAs.
Ping.
“Quite the contrary and I was shocked to see that FR was supporting Cruz .”
Same here. Obama was rumored to be foreign born to an American mother and a foreign father and we went after him.
Cruz is PROVEN to be foreign born to only an American mother and a foreign father and we didn’t.
Many FReepers changed their tune about all this after a so-called conservative was offered up.
“How about Alexander Hamilton?”
What about him? What’s your question?
Exactly. I get flack from both sides on this going back to the argument over Obama. At least I'm consistent unlike certain Cruz-aid drinkers who said it was slam dunk that Obama wasn't eligible, but now say Cruz is.
While reading through all the ignorant dreck in this thread, I seem to have come across a pearl. Do you have any references for this bit of information?
This bit is useful, if true.
I think it is egregious that people desiring publicly elected offices that require them to be a citizen, are not required to prove their eligibility to hold the office they seek.
“There you go with yet another lie. “
Nice try to be dismissive but claiming people lied is retarded.
The law isn’t Congress write them, the President signs them...and some State Department employee rewrites the law.
You’re going to need to find the law, cite the law properly, or just shut the Hell up and stop posting pamphlets as your source of legal record.
Anything else is just childish conjecture on your part.
Great find. I have been stating this since like December or perhaps even November of last year. Sadly hardly anyone would listen. When “conservatives” are willing to overlook the Constitutional requirements to hold the office of President of the United States, you know this country is in even greater danger than we can imagine.
It was not replaced for defining natural born citizenship, however. Natural born citizenship has a definition, or the writers of the Constitution would not have used it, and it was a hold over from British law.
However, by law, a passport also serves as proof of citizenship.
i don’t know how old you are, but back in the day this was actually taught in civics class in school. it was simple.... born in the US by US citizens and being 35 years old you were eligible to be president.
have you ever thought that Mark is just plain lying about this? cause i do - there’s no other explanation for me, because Mark is not stupid in the least.
>>>>and as far as I am concerned it is absolute treason.
great post. i agree
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.