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

To: CatherineofAragon

The controversy centers at/in the Constitution which/where specifically by 1st and 2nd Articles there is a specific delineation in wording between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’. For years politicians have used obfuscation to circumvent the difference in wording. The first successful one I know of was when Arthur who had a questionable US birthright succeeded McKinley who was assassinated. The second successful one I know of is Obama who had his path cleared by Pelosi vouching for Obama’s qualifications for POTUSA. It is my understanding that Obama was sired by a SE Asian guru named Muhammed Subuh with a young filly not yet 18 years of age named Stanley Ann Dunham. I don’t believe that eligibility for POTUSA is as Constitutionally as simple as just an either or situation as many others take the matter.


280 posted on 02/02/2015 1:44:30 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: noinfringers2
To me the interpretation seems obvious. If you are in fact an American citizen at birth, then you're Natural Born.

I'm convinced that claims of Cruz's alleged ineligibility are a non-starter in legal circles, and I'm rather bewildered as to why they would be seized on in such apparently knee-jerk fashion.

It seems like a slam dunk to me. How is Cruz, an American citizen at and by birth, not Natural Born?

282 posted on 03/22/2015 10:28:59 PM PDT by sargon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | 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