Posted on 07/21/2013 5:34:04 PM PDT by Cold Case Posse Supporter
Since Canadian born Ted Cruz has emerged on the scene in Washington as a future presidential candidate for 2016, attention has turned to whether he is Constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1, the presidential qualification clause. This is what we know. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Many say that disqualifies him to be eligible for the presidency. Enter former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. She was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I came across an interview she did with Fox News's Chris Wallace in February of 2010. During the interview Wallace brought up the fact that since she was born in Canada, she wasn't eligible to be president. Here is the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/21/transcript-fox-news-sunday-interview-future-gop/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529
"GRANHOLM: No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment. December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.
WALLACE: Yes, that’s true. We should point out Governor Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president.
GRANHOLM: I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship.”
With that said, I went to the biography of Jennifer Granholm and found that she was born to one American citizen and is indeed a dual Citizen who became 'NATURALIZED' as a U.S. Citizen in 1980 at the age of 21. Now this raises a question. How can a naturalized U.S. Citizen become president of the United States?
Continued below.
By the way, if you really believe that it is the constitutional function of the Supreme Court to disqualify candidates that a majority of its justices believe are ineligible, how do you rate the Supreme Court's performance in that regard? How has the Court been doing in terms of the candidate-screening role you think it possesses? Does the Court just need a little more time to translate Vattel from French into English? Do you hear the Court's bugle? Are the justices on their way?
I have no doubt that by 2016, the birthers will be ready to support Ted Cruz if he's nominated. And, I think he's got a great shot. He's authentic and people can see that.
I like Cruz just fine. If he wins the nomination, i'm going to vote for him.
But I don't believe that he meets the technical requirements of the "natural born citizen" clause.
Therefore, to neutralize Zero, and his ilk that aspire to his position, we must temporarily play dirty with the rats until we can elect someone who DOES believe in the rule of law.
I don’t like it, either, but this ain’t beanbag anymore.
Once more, I find myself agreeing with your position. If THEY don't follow the rules, we have no obligation to follow them either.
Yup.
Now I wouldn't go that far. They have different weaknesses. What would hurt Cruz, wouldn't necessarily hurt Obama.
Not all of them have researched and pondered this topic to the same degree. Cruz's weakness is in a Judicial challenge based on the US Supreme Court case "Rogers v Bellei."
Aldo Mario Bellei was born in a foreign country to an American Mother and a Foreign father. Bellei lost his citizenship because he didn't follow the conditions imposed by Congress in the law they created which GRANTED him citizenship.
As far as I can tell, Cruz and his American mother, have met the conditions required to make him a citizen, but here's the thing.
Natural citizens do not HAVE conditions they have to meet. Once they are born, they will ALWAYS be citizens, no matter what they do.
Cruz was REQUIRED to reside in the United States for the specified number of years, and his mother was REQUIRED to have had a certain number of years of residency and she was also REQUIRED to be a certain age when he was born.
Natural born citizens don't have to meet any of these requirements. This is why Ted is NOT a "natural citizen" he is a "Statutory Citizen" created through an act of congress which occurred before he was born.
Once more, having CONDITIONS on your citizenship makes you a non "natural" citizen.
If you really believe that it is the constitutional function of the Supreme Court to disqualify candidates that a majority of its justices believe are ineligible, how do you rate the Supreme Court's performance in that regard? How has the Court been doing in terms of the candidate-screening role you think it possesses? Does the Court just need a little more time to translate Vattel from French into English? Do you hear the Court's bugle? Are the justices on their way?
Just read the Constitution. The House of Representatives possesses the "sole" power of impeachment. And, if your analysis forces you to conclusions that fail conform to generally accepted realities (e.g., conclusions such as the president is not really the president, Japan is not really in Asia, World War II actually preceded World War I), you should draw the inference that your analysis deserves some reconsideration.
Each of the justices of the Supreme Court has during the last five years referred to the president as "the president" (read their opinions). They attended his inaugurations. The Chief Justice has twice (actually more than twice) volunteered to administer the presidential oath of office to this president. If your analysis really compels the conclusion that the president is really not the president and that the Supreme Court is going to disqualify him, it's obviously time for you to "go back to the drawing boards."
If you are a “natural born citizen” what you do subsequent to birth can have no impact on your citizenship.
Not true.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_780.html
http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_779.html
Reasoning with some folks is waste of your time because they are not working the issues for reason or Constitutionality, they’re working the issues to try and shoehorn into legitimacy a little bastard black boy born in Canada to an unwed white mother. Ted Cruz is just the latest tool they use to try and foist misdirection and deception upon readers who have not been following the debate for a few years.
Because the Liberal Democrat Media are a powerful force in election politics. They generally give a Democrat Presidential candidate a ten point edge that he doesn't deserve.
For an example of what I mean, the undeserved Mockery of Sarah Palin probably cost a million votes or more. The worst thing they do is cover up ugly news or information about Democrat candidates because they WON'T report on it.
And, by that time, you'll feel good about it, too!
Thank you for saying that! You're all right, you are! ;-)
I'm thinking he was shaking his head because the format was so difficult to read. I had to skip over it without really understanding it.
No Jeff, Cruz is NOT eligible, but he might be able to run if nobody files a challenge. If they do, he's going to get tripped up by Rogers v Bellei. "Conditional" citizenship is not "natural" citizenship.
And that's all the time I'm going to waste on you.
The constitutional function of the Supreme Court is to decide cases according to law and fact.
Yes, the House of Representatives possesses the “sole” power of impeachment. Impeachment is not the topic.
“Each of the justices of the Supreme Court has during the last five years referred to the president as ‘the president’...” I am not discussing any particular individual, why are you?
I’ve explained how a Judicial determination of ineligibility is a removal from Office. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3045713/posts?page=375#375
If there is a particular point you dispute please be specific.
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
Ted Cruz’s father was resident in the US starting in 1957. It seems to me he meets the original intent.
That's hardly the salient point. He got more Electoral votes because the Liberal Media used all the massive power of their Democrat-Media Deathstar. With it's power, Tina Fey alone cost us a million votes.
His eligibility to run for president and to be president has been upheld by many courts at every level of the judiciary
And this is pertinent to the question of how he is President? Didn't all that happen AFTER THE FACT? God! I would have WISHED that someone with "standing" had the balls to challenge him prior to the fact!
Also, you are conflating the refusal to hear cases with being the same thing as "Upheld", which is deliberately misleading.
and every single member of Congress voted to certify his Electoral votes
When one is facing a rock slide, one doesn't argue with the rocks, one runs downhill. That Congress is simply ignorant and cowardly is not proof that Obama is legitimate, and an honest man wouldn't cite it as proof that he is.
(twice)
That someone has done something a second time is not proof that it wasn't a mistake the first time they did it.
without objection.
What do you suppose would have happened to a congressman who would have objected on this point? Remember what happened to the congressman who yelled "You Lie!" during Obama's speech? Yeah, it would have been far worse for anyone daring to suggest the Bastard wasn't legitimately an American.
No court has ever ruled him to be ineligible and no act of Congress has challenged his eligibility.
So Therefore he's eligible! We all know that the laws of reality obey the courts and congress, right?
Once again, I am befuddled by a supposed conservative who is moved to such @$$ kissing of the court system. Most conservatives that I know regard it with enmity and disgust because it has become nothing but a tool for liberal socialist advance.
Once again, I find this to be an argument with which I can live, but I think you are completely off base with that "anti-Hispanic" crap though.
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
Two points.
1. Congress cannot pass an act which changes the meaning of a constitutional term. That is an error.
2. "shall be considered as " does not mean the same thing as "is."
I expect we all will. Nothing could be worse than what we have now.
Thank you for saying that! You're all right, you are! ;-)
I think most of us are all right, we just try to deal with the confusion and the problem in different ways, sometimes we end up grating on each other.
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.