Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr Rogers

“Incorrect. This IS a settled question.”

This is a “settled” question like Global Warming was “settled” science.

“There is no legal argument about needing two citizen parents.”

If you changed the meaning of natural born citizen you are correct.

“Ted Cruz DOES fall in a gray area.”

How can Ted Cruz fall into a gray ares if this is “settled” law?

“If Ted Cruz was elected President of the USA, no foreign power would claim his obedience. That is silly.”

It’s not “silly”. Whether they “would” or not, is not the point. The point is they “could” - possibly Canada, most assuredly Cuba.

Not sure what information you have that “All 50 states” consider it settled, nor that all 535 member of Congress consider it settled. The fact that we have 535 members of Congress who cowardly refuse to publicly even discuss the issue does not mean they all agree with your definition.

The only court that matters is SCOTUS and they are evading the issue (Clarence Thomas’s words).

If it’s so black and white and 0bama meets your definition of natural born citizen, why wouldn’t SCOTUS have taken one of the cases that came to them, ruled that anyone can be President regardless of where he was born and what citizenship his parents held at the time, and be done with?

The reason is that they know he doesn’t meet the definition and they fear the repercussions of a finding stating he’s NOT eligible, and what it could do to the Country. Ruling 0bama eligible would just tick off the “few” of us “fringe” “birthers”. Ruling him ineligible, well that opens up a very LARGE can of worms that they’re afraid to open - which is why they’re “evading” the issue.


128 posted on 05/10/2013 7:58:06 AM PDT by Larry - Moe and Curly (Loose lips sink ships.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: Larry - Moe and Curly

“If it’s so black and white and 0bama meets your definition of natural born citizen, why wouldn’t SCOTUS have taken one of the cases that came to them, ruled that anyone can be President regardless of where he was born and what citizenship his parents held at the time, and be done with?”

Because they made a ruling like that in 1898, and don’t feel a need to repeat themselves...except that WHERE he was born IS important. Had he been born in Kenya, he might not qualify for US citizenship at all.

But if he was born in the USA, then the citizenship of either/both parents is irrelevant, unless they were ambassadors or members of an invading army.


130 posted on 05/10/2013 8:02:14 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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