Editorial: Ted Cruz and the ‘birther’ issue

Dallas News ^ | Aug 19, 2013 | Edtitorial

[af_vet_rr]

Unfortunately nothings prohibits a Muslim Socialist Marxist Scumbag from being a US president.

Republicans running an actual Conservative might have prevented it....

[X-spurt]

Absolutely can not believe a word from Dallas News about anything conservative. That rag is among the worst.

[mvpel]

He's a natural-born citizen of Canada too.

[JRandomFreeper]

You're only saying that because you don't read the Ft. Worth Startlegram.

/johnny

[xzins]

So, would you vote for Christie over Cruz?

[X-spurt]

NBC sounds very good in theory, but in practice there is no clear Constitutional answer one way or the other. That is precisely why NBC will never be heard or settled by the SCOTUS.

The only way NBC will be clarified is if SHTF and only if the hands shaping the renewed Constitution possess firm common sense.

[X-spurt]

His mother was single at the time

Where the heck did you get that????

[DoughtyOne]

Well, it’s a tough nut. But I don’t think I’d push for gifting or employer funding or any mandates whatsoever.  Wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.

I understand the aprehension, and utimately you may be right.  My thought is that employers are already matching funds.  This would not increase their outlay.  In time it may be found we can actually reduce what they are paying now.

If Constitutional muster covers what is being done now (and I think we can agree it doesn't), then this change could probably be graced in as well.  In time, it may be found we can take the employer out of it completely.  That would be the goal.  Gettig them out of the health insurance provision business would be good too.

As for gifting, it's merely a way for people to get their major deductable up front.  As this system became functional, say three to five years out, the government would no longer provide the $10,000.  It would come from the massive body of savings people were building.  A payback to the fund would be with interest, and help sustain growth for participants.  So initially, the government would provide funds to be paid back in 3 to 5 years, and then that funding would switch out in very few years, so the government would no longer be involved at all.

But it’d be really tough to leave seniors stranded at this point.

The plan would have be to structured so current Seniors would be unaffected.  Seniors start dropping off the system the very first year they retire.  Some of them do.  Each year more do.  By the end of twenty years, you're looking at people who are 85 years old.  A considerable number of seniors would have passed on by them, probably more than half.  In another ten years almost all seniors on the old plan would have passed on.  Most certainly only a very few would still be around by age 105, 40 years after retirement.  We may see one generation pay into the system in two different ways, but even then their savings and retirement would be better than it would have been under the old system.  I believe, if structured right, it could be a win/win even then.

There would have to be a graded scale set up, so new employees would pay less and less into the old plan to support retirees.  For one thing, the funds going in would start to accumulate interest.  That's not something that is happening today.  If handled right, a building fund might actually be able to take care of the whole old system in as little as 20 to 30 years.  I do agree, current seniors need to be supported as they were promised they would be.  That's a contract we should honor. 

Need to find a way to retrieve what was stolen from the people and return it to them while phasing it out altogether.

My take on this, is that when a good business person comes along and gets our people back to work, increasing funds are going to cure a multitude of ills.  I take a very dim view of endless welfare.  We need to make a special address to the American people, and explain that welfare as we know it is ending.  We will no longer provide welfare to people for long periods of time.  They either have SS disability, or they get back to work.  In the rare instance where people do have disabilities and can't work, then there would of course have to be a very cut down version of Welfare.  It would be only a hint of what it is today.

Over 24 to 36 months, I would cut the welfare benefits by a few percentage points until at the end of the allotted time, all payments would stop.

I would also through tax incentives get businesses to employ U. S. Citizens.  I believe if handled right, a full economy floats all boats.

It's hard to explain all this in a short time frame.  An expanded version might alleviate a lot of your concerns or objections.

But none of that will make it through congress.

Isn't that the truth.  It would have to.

[DoughtyOne]

Read the articles I linked up thread. He never renounced his Canadian citizenship. He was as surprised as anyone to hear he might have one.

[P-Marlowe]

According to the Canadian Definition of Natural Born Citizen, if a Canadian Citizen gives birth to a child while temporarily living abroad, the child is a Natural Born Citizen of Canada.

The Canadian Law echoes English Common Law which was adopted by every State in the Union except Louisiana, which adopted the French Civil Law.

The Colonies were all under the Jurisdiction of England and continued using English Common Law until the laws were replaced on an individual basis following Independence. The English common law provided that The children of citizens living abroad will be considered natural born citizens. This was the understanding of the founders when they used the term in drafting the Constitution.

Under the definition of the term as enunciated in English Common Law, Ted Cruz would be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.

Thanks for posting that.

[X-spurt]

I quit all the sorry big Texas papers long ago, about the same time as Tom Landry retired.

[upchuck]

Discuss the issue all you want. Me, I got better things to do with my time. As I said in the original reply, I’m staying away. Beginning right now.

[X-spurt]

Thank you for putting that in a way even the denser may get it.

[sten]

if you believe in the Constitution then you must insist on it being upheld, no matter the situation. expecting to apply A2S1 to 0bama but not another candidate simply because he makes favorable noises, is just inconsistent and against the law.

the founders inserted the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a requirement for the office of the president. they specifically added it to insure the person assuming the office would not have split alliegences, at least by birth.

therefore, a person is a natural born citizen if, upon birth, there are no alternatives.

i was born in the US to an American father and a Scottish mother. when I was born, I was a US citizen due to my father and being in the country... but I was also British by descent through my mom. this results in possible split alliegences, as i grew up travelling to Scotland and having family members travelling here. this is the exact situation the founders structured the Constitution to avoid.

both 0bama and Cruz would be ineligible due to being British by descent, like myself

[butterdezillion]

lol

Gun? ;)

[DoughtyOne]

I got it from the articles that kept referencing his mother and her status, without mentioning his father at all. It sounded like they were no longer together, although I didn’t see that specifically stated. It it’s not true, that’s okay.

I believe I referenced earlier that I hadn’t studied this issue in full yet, so it shouldn’t really surprise you or anyone else that I might be incorrect on a point or two.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks UpChuck. Later...

[sten]

Ted Cruz doesn't have dual citizenship.

by definition, being born in Canada to a US mother and a Cuban father... he would be:

* American through his mother (need to check age & time in US)
* Canadian by being on their soil
* Cuban through his father (need to check Cuban international birth laws)
* British by descent by being born in Canada (iffy on this, would need to check)

[X-spurt]

Your reference is incorrect. They were married and his Dad was temporarily working in the Canadian oilfields. His Dad was not yet a Naturalized citizen, although he was a previous “resident” of the US following his exile from Cuba.

[lonestar]

He renounced it last week.