Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Nothing further.
1 posted on 01/18/2016 7:19:37 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt

* yawn *


2 posted on 01/18/2016 7:24:51 AM PST by Fido969 ("The hardest thing in the world to understand is income taxes" - Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

The right pedigree is the most important thing in a Dog and Pony show.

How do we know that Donald Trump is not the bastard son of an Italian Waiter?

I want Paternity tests on all candidates. After all, Vattel insisted that the right of Citizenship flowed from the father.

We must insist that every candidate show that they are a pure bred. No Mongrels allowed!


3 posted on 01/18/2016 7:25:00 AM PST by P-Marlowe (Tagline pending.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

The RNC is more than willing to commit the same crime as did San Fran Nan and certify a candidate that they know is ineligible. They are politicians.Laws do not apply to them. Tar, feathers and orange jump suits might make them change their minds. Worth a try IMHO!


4 posted on 01/18/2016 7:25:13 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

+1


5 posted on 01/18/2016 7:28:27 AM PST by Fantasywriter (Any attempt to do forensic work using Internet artifacts is fraught with pitfalls. JoeProbono)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

I pray for great wisdom to apply in the situation. It looks like a “Casus Bellei” all right. At the least it shows that the USSC can come at this thing from different angles and nobody knows which one it will take.

It’s possible that yes, Cruz did bite off more than he could chew in this situation. This may not be his hour for the presidential race. That doesn’t mean it isn’t his hour for something else.

Nobody wins a game of negativity and doubt. Trump and Cruz might be better positioned with Cruz helping to push the Trump spearhead and with both taking a positive tone.


7 posted on 01/18/2016 7:29:26 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

If you’re a Naturalized Citizen, wouldn’t you have to attend a Naturalization ceremony? Can you tell us when Cruz had his Naturalization ceremony?


8 posted on 01/18/2016 7:35:18 AM PST by Texican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

From wiki

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.

The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.


11 posted on 01/18/2016 7:39:01 AM PST by babygene (Make America Great Again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Arguments and opinions in the justification of a decision of one case are legally definitive of absolutely nothing for another case.

They carry no more weight than a footnote and set no more legal precedent than a court stenographers fart.


12 posted on 01/18/2016 7:42:33 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Natural-born means citizen at birth. If you have any difficulty believing that was the original intent of the Constitution, you need only read the Naturalization Act of 1790, the very first Congress, which grants “natural-born citizen” status to those who are citizens at birth.

The Naturalization Act was merely legislation. It is no longer the controlling legislation. The important point is that it answers what the Constitution means by “natural-born citizen.”


13 posted on 01/18/2016 7:45:18 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” It specifies that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” the only US statute ever to use the term. (From Wikipedia). Ted Cruz is “natural born” not “naturalized.”
19 posted on 01/18/2016 7:48:50 AM PST by Procyon (Decentralize, degovernmentalize, deregulate, demonopolize, decredentialize, disentitle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt
Nothing further.

Nothing prior, either.

30 posted on 01/18/2016 7:57:46 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Revenge is a Daesh best served cold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

We need to be consistent. If Obama was not eligible, then neither is Cruz. That is if Obama was really born outside the country.If Obama is legal then Cruz is. End of story. It is one or the other. The frustrating part is those who want to play both sides of the fence, depending on who they support. Nonsense.


52 posted on 01/18/2016 8:39:29 AM PST by andy1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

When I was in school, which was admittedly several decades ago... we were taught that you had to be a natural born citizen to be president. The reason given to us was that the founders did not want someone with “divided loyalties” leading the country.

Ted Cruz did not formally renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2013. He said that despite being a lawyer and constitutional scholar he did not realize that he could have claimed to be a Canadian Citizen until that time. I find this completely disingenuous... everyone that I have known who has had dual citizenship has known about it since they were little kids. And Ted didn’t? Completely unbelievable to me. Everyone and I mean even the dumbest kid in school knew if he was a dual citizen.

I am not a lawyer but because we live close to the border I have had many friends and acquaintances who I have known and worked with who like Ted because of the circumstances of their birth have had “dual citizenship”. It has always been a strange concept to me. It seems to me that especially upon reaching adulthood one should have to pick one team or the other. But it doesn’t work that way.

None of my friends and acquaintances who have had dual citizenship with Canada have had any desire to give it up; it gives them perceived advantages over the rest of us. In my age group one always suspected that they perceived it as an ace if they were to have been drafted. But even women like having that ace in their pocket. Ted chose not to formally give up his dual citizenship until he decided he wanted to become president. That is about how much it would take for everyone else I have known to give up their dual citizenship, so I do not blame him.

When my wife was going to High School, one of the top football players from another district moved to her school. The coaches wouldn’t let him join my wife’s school’s football team because they said that they couldn’t be sure of his loyalties. No one fought the decision because everyone understood the reasoning.

And I am actually a big Cruz fan; he is the smartest man in the race. He also has the best conservative credentials of all the republican contenders. I would love it if he became our next president.

But Trump is correct that Cruz needs to put this issue behind him because it will be used against him in the general election. Hillary is disintegrating even before the real contest begins and Bernie Sanders is a full fledged communist who has no business near the halls of congress let alone the Whitehouse. Their only real hope is that at last minute the candidate they are running against either dies or has some type of total melt down... like being declared ineligible shortly before the general election.

The media would be all over this and they would love it. It really needs to be put to rest right now. Cruz needs to push for some type of formal legal clarification himself. Unlike Obama... Cruz isn’t black and the press doesn’t like him so trying to call people “birthers”, “racists”, etc. won’t catch on and won’t work as a defense.


64 posted on 01/18/2016 9:01:16 AM PST by fireman15 (Check your facts before making ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Thank you. May I use that paraphrased? I want to write to my state committee, my Secretary of State and a letter to the editor of the local paper. I really would like to see some of these people go on record as to why this is being allowed.


77 posted on 01/18/2016 10:36:09 AM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Jason Savage?

Is this cat that idiot Michael Weiner’s kin?

I am so glad the local talk radio put him away in the afternoon, I can’t stand that guy.


85 posted on 01/18/2016 4:53:43 PM PST by West Texas Chuck (OBAMA: Fundamentally Twerking America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Toddsterpatriot; Cboldt
A bit of sound advice from a Freeper attorney...
86 posted on 01/19/2016 7:52:06 PM PST by Just mythoughts (Jesus said Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson