Skip to comments.CATO Institute: Yes, Ted Cruz Can be President
Posted on 08/30/2013 12:02:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Your Alinsky mind tricks are wasted on me.
you have virtually no following and you are harmful to the conservative cause.
I can’t stand liberals, but I lump radical birthers in with Liberals because you folks want to give the Courts too much power.
The time to fight the battle is in the primaries. Not the general election.
You’ve been a staunch Obama defender on eligibility before Ted Cruz was even a blip on the map. All one needs to do is check your posting history.
That, or you are an idiot.
It is also very clear that you are not a conservative.
Stating facts which you do not like is not, in any way, support for Obama.
I am so in line with your thinking. I just wish more people had as much common sense or at least, the brain power to acknowledge that common sense.
Jim, I really love Ted Cruz and if he wins the primary I will certainly work for him and vote for him. I think it’s a bit too early to settle on one candidate just yet. After watching both of them, my instinct says Scott Walker is the one who can carry it all the way. He and Cruz are the two I’m watching, and I think that Cruz will have the same problem that Sarah had. He will be Alinskyed to the point where sqishy moderates will be convinced he is satan incarnate. Walker has already been through that and came out smelling like a rose. Note the response he got in Iowa. He & Cruz were the two who got the most response.
I support Cruz for anything but the Presidency, I can not in good conscience have opposed Obama’s qualification to President, and then turn around and support Cruz when I don’t believe neither is a natural born citizen.
The article states “In other words, anyone who is a citizen at birth - as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen later (”naturalizes”) or who isn’t a citizen at all - can be president.”
What??? where did he get that?
There is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen.
Being a citizen at birth is not the same as being a natural born citizen. The author fails to make the connection.
Reading the Supreme court cases is interesting, for example United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898):
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ... contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”
So its pretty clear to me that anyone NOT born in the US is a citizen by naturalization.
They may be a (naturalized) citizen at birth by virtue of the citizenship of their parents, or under different circumstances through the process which is what we normally think of the as the naturalization process.
This is just my opinion, but this highlights the need for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this issue.
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.