Yep, I'm such a dissembling liberal that I 'opposed' Ted Cruz by voting for him......
TWICE!
Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by Fai Mao
On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.
Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.
Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.
No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Yep, I'm such a dissembling liberal that I 'opposed' Ted Cruz by voting for him......
TWICE!
Oh...treading a bit of dangerous water, now aren't you?
Not everyone is particularly tolerant with the 'speaking for me' crap.
-----
If Jim has the slightest doubt about the two-citizen-parent claims being nonsense, I’d be willing to sit down and explain to him the fallacies in any piece of “evidence” he has any questions about.
As would I.
------
Which leaves us where we began, with your words meaning nothing.
Unless your willing to give someone a PING.
I'm willing to take that risk....
Are you?
Until the Supreme Court accepts an appeal and rules on it, the lower court rulings stand.
what lower court ruling? I am not aware of any related to my point
And would you vote for him for President?
If he runs, will you continue to promote your claim that he is ineligible?
Yes or no.
I would not vote for Ted Cruz for President because of his Constitutional ineligibility.
------
To SOME people, the Constitution isn't just words.
Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1792
That it yields ridiculous results ought to constitute the best evidence that it is incorrect. The framers were NOT STUPID!
It's funny to me that the side arguing that we should interpret the Constitution in whatever way is required to get the results we want claims to be the "conservative" side, while the side arguing that we should accept what the Framers said regardless of how it might be abused is denigrated as the "liberal" side.
You are misconstruing the point. The founders stated clearly what were their intentions regarding Article II requirements. It is axiomatic that your interpretation does not serve their intentions, ergo it is incorrect.
The Framers may well have been horrified that a man of Barack Obama's or Ted Cruz's parentage could become president. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't prove they forbade it. They'd probably have been horrified that a man of Mitt Romney's or Eric Cantor's religion could become president, too, but they didn't forbid that either.
So now you are pulling out "the founders were RACISTS!!!!" card? The objection up till now was that Barack did not have an American Father, and was therefore not a natural born citizen. Last I checked, Americans were not required to be a specific race, so as race is immaterial to the point of a foreign father, your point is an intentional mis-characterization of your opposition.
In other words, a sleazy ad hominem.
To me, the Constitution isn't just words.
I suppose you are simply deceived. Ah, well. I will continue making the case for the truth.
Maybe God will one day remove the blindness from your eyes. I know I can't.
Don't try to martyr yourself. You're not qualified.
-----
Since I had the courtesy to answer one of your questions, do have the fortitude to HONESTYLY answer one of mine.
DO you get paid by the word?
If you can't refute the facts, change the question.
Isn't that how they play it?
Uh, I didn't say anything about race. "Parentage" covers "Barack did not have an American Father."
Now you have sprinted down the non-sequitur of arguing that Ramsey couldn't have been motivated by good intentions because the other guy was just as bad as William Smith in regards to his support for slavery. This is a false conflating of one thing with another, and is pretty much what I have come to expect from you.
Given that both candidates were Pro-Slavery, it must have been some OTHER reason why Ramsey wanted to torpedo William Smith. Now you were given the history in that link I provided, and you know full well that Smith's Brother was a Loyalist, and that Smith himself used his legal skills to advocate to win cases for the British, yet you DISHONESTLY try to dismiss the point by your foray into how Alexander Gillion was ALSO a Slave holder.
This is a classic Tuo quoque Argument. It is, in fact, the most CHILDISH of arguments, ("He did it too!!!") and it is exactly the kind of crap that you are best at.
Ramsey was Captured by the British and was, for nearly a year, a Prisoner of War. William Smith was pretty much a rat fink who's every move, and that of his family was seen as favoring the British and the Loyalists, yet you argue that Ramsey was out to get him because Ramsey got third place in an election?
Again, you are a turd who is intentionally misconstruing Ramsey's Actions to suit your own need to rebuke his writings. You are doing to him exactly what you accused me of doing to Rawle, (And which you had to walk back because you were WRONG about Rawle, and *I* was completely correct.) You are, among other things, a Hypocrite.
The whole thing shows just how despicable you are, and how you're not the slightest bit interested in promoting the truth based on the evidence.
And the Pot calls the Kettle black.
Now you are going to try to walk back your insinuation? Let us examine what you said in detail.
The Framers may well have been horrified that a man of Barack Obama's or Ted Cruz's parentage could become president. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't prove they forbade it.
If the founders believed as you claim, that Foreign parentage is inconsequential, why would they be in horror of it?
By suggesting that they were in horror of it, you are very deliberately implying a racial component, not a foreign one. From your own claimed understanding of the Founder's intention, there is nothing objectionable to the founders about Foreign Parentage.
You are caught.
I shouldn't be surprised that someone who believes he can read the Founders' minds would also believe he could read mine. The fact remains, as anyone can see, that I didn't say anything about race.
Yes, and you are such a deeply caring person, who only tells the truth, and who would never ever ever toss a put-down, disparaging remark, or ad hominem toward any fellow patriot.
Why, you're a model citizen, who would never spend years, countless hours, and tens of thousands of posted words, promoting views which do nothing but serve to protect and defend an alien monster who has usurped and abused the office of President - very nearly bringing the country we love to its very knees.
Yes. I believe that Mama Texan and I owe you our profound apologies for misjudging all of the slighting cuts and barbs you've hurled at us on this thread. I can see now that we deserved every one.
We erred in repeatedly demanding that you lay out a fundamental case for your position using your own logic and reasoning. What were we thinking? You told us to re-read your cut and pastes, but being the dunces we are, we ignored you. How foolish of us.
I humbly ask for your forgiveness, and vow to never question your brilliant cut and pasting again.
I was referring to the lower court rulings that have found Obama to qualify as a natural born citizen based on Ankeny v Daniels by way of US v Wong Kim Ark.
Decisions like Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82011399/Tisdale-v-Obama-EDVA-3-12-cv-00036-Doc-2-ORDER-23-Jan-2012
What part of “to ourselves and our Posterity” in the Preamble to the United States Constitution do you fail to understand?
At its foundation the term Natural Born Citizen points directly to the properties of blood and soil. That is, one is born in the borders of our country (soil) and born of American Citizen parents (blood).
By its very definition, the term foreign denotes a lack of blood or soil connection to a country.
Any argument that advocates for a U.S. President who lacks a blood or soil connection to this country is actually advocating for a foreign Presidency.
Ineligible means ineligible....not 'they're eligible if I like them well enough'.
LOL!
Hope that helped.
No, it doesn't, Joseph.
The term came directly and absolutely from the term "natural born subject," which had a long and well-known history, and a very specific meaning.
According to the natural (and divine) law of England, if you were born within a realm, you were "naturally" a part of that realm. It made no difference whether your parents were citizens or legal aliens.
The only exceptions were the children of foreign royalty/ ambassadors, and the children of invading armies.
We adopted the exact same rule. And as the Supreme Court specifically said in 1898, that rule applied in England, in the English Colonies in America, in the United States after Independence, and in the United States after the establishment of our Constitution.
But it's not just the word of the Supreme Court. All of our prior history and law backs that assessment.
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.