Posted on 10/29/2013 9:02:51 AM PDT by txrangerette
Cruz said in an interview with Fusion that because his mother is an American citizen he is a citizen as well.
"I was a U.S. Citizen by birth and beyond that I'm going to leave it to others to worry about...legal consequences", he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Lemme adjust my flame shield. OK. That is precisely what makes me itchy about Cruz. He could possibly claim (or have claimed) to be a Canadian, or a Cuban.
Me? Well Ted, I think a NBC is a person both (that's 2) of whose parents are American Citizens. Got the same problem with Jindal. Rubio. And of course, The Mombasa MF.
Sorry. If I am wrong, I need the SCOTUS to tell me.
Problem is, we have had the SCOTUS tells us, we just re-imagine their words to mean something different.
That’s called “progressive”, my FRiend.
“But he is flawed as a candidate because of his father.”
I see, typical liberal, can’t impeach Cruz so let’s go after his father. Well, stupid, his father isn’t running and no one impeached Zero for his father. In fact, I can’t think of any President impeached with a terrible father, yet, here you are trying to lob whatever grenade you can at Cruz.
You have outed yourself as an extreme left-wing liberal.
“Sorry. If I am wrong, I need the SCOTUS to tell me. “
You need 5 extreme left-wing liberals, 1 moderate, and 3 conservatives to do your thinking for you? You abdicate your citizenship and the responsibility for thinking to that group??
“Maybe you should read the law more. Here, try reading this:
8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth”
You are quoting the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Congress is Constitutionally mandated to devise a uniform rule of law and regulation for the process of being recognized as a U.S. Citizen. Congress does not have Constitutional authority to determine who is and who is not a natural born citizen.
It’s entirely possible and probable SCOTUS would hear a case brought by the Libs against Cruz because he is relying on a statute to prove his eligibility for POTUS where Congress is not Constitutionally mandated authority to legislate.
Natural born citizenship status is a subset of U.S. Citizen. Obama uses his birth certificate to infer he is a natural born citizen by the 14th Amendment. In fact, Obama uses the Privacy Act to conceal his Certificate of Naturalization from the public. Cruz relies on his Certificate of Citizenship, issued to him under the Immigration and Nationality to publicly claim citizenship.
A natural born citizen cannot rely on the Immigration and Nationality Act to proclaim eligibility because Congress does not have that Constitutional authority. Congress can only codify a process for becoming a citizen.
“Not according to Minor v. Happersett...”
Of which you have never read because if you did you wouldn’t have said that.
“Cruz is eligible because Obama was elected. Argument ends there. “
Maybe for you but no one else has said that. We have said he is a natural born citizen because he was a citizen at birth.
Neither defined natural born citizenship.
Search their writings all you want, they do not offer a definition.
Minor v. Happersett, in context, ^did^ define NBC as born on US soil to both a man and a woman who were citizens at the time of birth (not just ONE parent, but both).
It did not make a definition, either in its context or on an absolute basis.
It simply said that no definition of natural born could exclude Minor, since she would fit under even the narrowest conceivable definition.
The court did not say that unless one was precisely situated as Minor was one could not be a natural born citizen.
“Obama uses his birth certificate “
“Certificate of Naturalization”
What birth certificate? We have never seen such a thing. You haven’t either.
What “Certificate of Naturalization “? We have never seen such a thing. You haven’t either.
You know very little of law, yet, it is written in English. You even have a hard time understanding what the word ‘natural’ means. Not very bright, are you?
“v. Happersett, in context, ^did^ define NBC as born on US soil to both a man and a woman who were citizens at the time of birth (not just ONE parent, but both). “
I’ve already posted the part you leave out which is the court said that was one definition but not the only definition.
You still haven’t read that decision or else you wouldn’t have made such an ignorant and stupid claim as that.
These liberal trolls attack Cruz because he is effective. They know he will stomp the guts out of Hillary and any one else the Demcraps put up.
Rush Limbaugh calls them “Seminar Callers”; people that attend seminars to learn how to say something conservative just enough to be included in a discussion but them make all kinds of underhanded liberals claims.
Hey...it works for you.
Why should the rest of the US ask questions?
Again, we are not butting heads on this. Obama was elected and inaugurated. Cruz can be, too, outside of any SCOTUS decision to the contrary. If Cruz runs for POTUS, and if he wins the primary, I won’t mitigate against him.
I restate, I am disappointed that so many Americans can disregard the Constitution for expediency.
But, trust me, the communists will bring this up and MOST CERTAINLY will bring up any perceived hypocrisy in the conservative base regarding the BLATANT SIMILARITIES to Obamugabe’s bona-fides.
“His father has a very murky past and has floated several different versions of it, none of which bear up under scrutiny.”
Here is where these trolls go once they cannot impeach Cruz’s birth right: They try to underhandedly bash his father as being an issue.
“Again, we are not butting heads on this.”
“I restate, I am disappointed that so many Americans can disregard the Constitution for expediency”
THAT IS butting heads, moron!
I will take issue with you in that what I think is immaterial, at least to me, on this matter of eligibility. As a second grader in a parochial school I told my teacher what she had listed as careers on the blackboard did not include my goal. She asked what was my goal and I said POTUSA. The teacher was dumb founded but added POTUSA to the listing. Fast forward to after WWII when my brother was killed on Okinawa and I also served in the Pacific. I went to college on the G.I. Bill. It was at that time that I came to a conclusion that my second grade dream was not realizable. My father who died a few months before I was born and my mother were non citizens when my brother and I were born in the USA. I then became very interested in the constitutional aspects of eligibility and took a serious look at my second grade aspiration. I came away then and hold today that what was adopted by the Founders did indeed prohibit either my brother or myself from being eligible for POTUSA because eligibility was limited to having parentS who were citizens. This matter is material to me. With this said I believe Cruz is also a very good person as to my beliefs for the USA but I have to weigh what I have learned against what any other person says as to eligibility.
It doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. If Cruz is elected President and Ruth BAder Ginsburg thinks he is dangerous to the country she still has the prerogative of saying Cruz can’t be POTUS. Not a good idea. And the Founders never intended the government to play legal “chicken” with the people.
We need SCOTUS to give us an answer BEFORE Cruz runs, so they can’t snap it away from him if he gets elected. Hillary would challenge Cruz’ eligibility, no courts would be threatened into claiming that she has no standing, and what do you want to bet that a compromised John Roberts would end up ruling against Cruz?
This is a set-up. You can see it a mile away. The only way to stop it is to have the SCOTUS commit to a legal ruling BEFORE any of this happens.
It doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. If Cruz is elected President and Ruth BAder Ginsburg thinks he is dangerous to the country she still has the prerogative of saying Cruz can’t be POTUS. Not a good idea. And the Founders never intended the government to play legal “chicken” with the people.
We need SCOTUS to give us an answer BEFORE Cruz runs, so they can’t snap it away from him if he gets elected. Hillary would challenge Cruz’ eligibility, no courts would be threatened into claiming that she has no standing, and what do you want to bet that a compromised John Roberts would end up ruling against Cruz?
This is a set-up. You can see it a mile away. The only way to stop it is to have the SCOTUS commit to a legal ruling BEFORE any of this happens.
It doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. If Cruz is elected President and Ruth BAder Ginsburg thinks he is dangerous to the country she still has the prerogative of saying Cruz can’t be POTUS. Not a good idea. And the Founders never intended the government to play legal “chicken” with the people.
We need SCOTUS to give us an answer BEFORE Cruz runs, so they can’t snap it away from him if he gets elected. Hillary would challenge Cruz’ eligibility, no courts would be threatened into claiming that she has no standing, and what do you want to bet that a compromised John Roberts would end up ruling against Cruz?
This is a set-up. You can see it a mile away. The only way to stop it is to have the SCOTUS commit to a legal ruling BEFORE any of this happens.
No, somebody has to have standing and show harm from OBAMA being President, so SCOTUS rules BEFORE Cruz ever runs. See the post I just got done posting to xzins. A trap is being laid and the order in which things come is critical. Think about it.
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.