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 ...
:: You still haven’t read that decision or else you wouldn’t have made such an ignorant and stupid claim as that. ::
I’m beginning to think that you, sir, are a progressive plant that looks to stir up emotions rather than discuss history and facts.
You question my understanding of M v. H without knowing me and then make ad hominem insults as to my overall knowledge. You say I haven’t read the decision - without evidence - and then proceed to beat that strawman with fever.
Sir, the US Constitution is not the intrepretive property of lawyers and certainly not left to modern barristers to decide outside of “history since FDR”.
What is your definition of “We The People”? Or do you need to consult a lawyer to answer that?
| One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is before November 14, 1986 but after October 10, 1952 |
The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday. If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:
Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted. If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ. |
Blow it out yer butt, liberal. All the fancy wording of your post suggests an arrogant prick looking to win a fight he himself chose and is losing.
We’ve pointed out your flaws yet you continue to say them and bash Cruz.
No, it’s not legal precedent because the courts never granted anybody standing to get an actual legal decision on Obama’s eligibility. They left the door open for the issue to be brought up later by NOT setting a precedent. It’s a trap, people.
I like Cruz. I hope he’s eligible. I’ve heard arguments both ways. None of that matters. What matters is what a compromised SCOTUS would rule if they know it’s about Cruz, versus what they would rule if they knew it was about Obama.
If anybody here wants Cruz to be ruled eligible, then they better be lining up to sue over OBAMA’s ineligibility while they still can, and get a legal precedent when it’s OBAMA that the court thinks they’re helping. Because without that precedent the compromised court will do anything to get rid of Cruz who threatens everything about DC’s status quo, including the courts doing CYA for crooked politicians.
You mean like how we bash bammies father for being a commie, his grand parents his mother etc....
Stop being a hypocrite and calling FReepers names because they disagree with your definition of a term in the Constitution.
Cruz is so far doing a great job, he shows he is a man of conviction, but I learned a long time ago, men will let you down, so I simply observe and vote accordingly.
Time tells many things, Cruz has been in office for what, 10 months?
We'll see how this all pans out in time.
ummm....
wow!
Take it elsewhere! Not interested in your slime!
So...you don’t have a coherent answer?
Please, FR doesn’t need all that spittle on the screen.
Nice.
Real convincing argument there.
You bring disgrace to FR and debate.
“Cruz is eligible to be President because he is a natural born citizen of the United States.
His mother is a citizen.
That’s how it works.”
You’re correct on the result, but it’s a little more nuanced than that.
Cruz is a natural-born citizen because, pursuant to federal law at the time of his birth, Cruz is a U.S. citizen at birth. When Cruz was born, same as when Obama was born, a child born outside of the U.S. with one U.S. citizen parent and one non-citizen parent would be a U.S. citizen at birth if his U.S. citizen parent had resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years of his or her life, with at least 5 of those years coming after the age of 14. Cruz’s mother easily met such requirement, so Cruz, despite having been born in Canada, was a U.S. citizen at birth and thus a natural-born citizen.
The reason why it was so important for Obama to maintain that he had been born in Hawaii was because, had Obama been born in Kenya (as Obama seemed to have claimed earlier, and as his step-grandmother had indicated in an interview), he would *not* have been a U.S. citizen at birth, since his sole U.S. citizen parent had not resided in the U.S. for at least 5 years after turning 14 (something that would be incontrovertible, since his mother had not yet turned 19 when Obama was born, so she couldn’t have resided anywhere for 5 years after turning 14). Only by having been born in the U.S. (or by having a U.S. citizen for a father) could Obama be a U.S. citizen at birth and thus a natural-born citizen.
So Cruz is a natural-born citizen, even if Democrat claim that he was born in the Moon.
Oh I see. Obama has been in office almost FIVE years and there has yet to be a SC ruling that he is not a legal President. Not much happening there.
Cruz is eligible because Obama was elected. Argument ends there. If I refute the fact that Obama was not elected then I can refute Cruz is ineligible. I can’t refute that Obama was elected.
The electorate has lowerd the Constitutional bar. Simple.
I think you've called it. From then on, it's the cult of personality.
Fascinating psychology and more than a bit creepy. Happy Halloween.
First, let me say this so you know exactly where I stand:
Ted Cruz was born a U.S. citizen. He is a statutory citizen by birth. I believe he is eligible to the presidency.
I actually have read pretty much everything there is to read on the subject of natural-born citizens: every SCOTUS ruling, every piece of legislation passed or repealed, government policy manuals, and historical & political articles/commentaries/speeches/discussions, etc.
Most FR birthers are good conservatives with good intentions and most of them have read the same material that I have. I’ve been discussing Obama’s eligibility with them since 2008.
Here are some of the finer points of the eligibility dicussion.
- The Wonkg Kim Ark & Happersett SCOTUS rulings indicate that there is only one group of citizens who citizenship status cannot be questioned - those born on U.S. soil to citizen parents. About all other groups, arguments can be and have been made for or against their citizenship status.
- The State Department’s policy manual stipulates that a citzen at birth by statute is not necessarily equivalent to a natural born citizen under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution and eligible to the presidency. (Statutory citizenship granted at birth by Congress may or may not be the same as citizenship granted by the Constitution.)
- The State Department’s policy manual also stipulates that citizens at birth by statute are not considered naturalized because naturalization is a process that takes place after birth. They are citizens, nothing more, nothing less.
Until very recently, I have long been of the opinion that statutory citizens at birth are not natural-born citizens because their citizenship status is a Congressional generosity granted through legislation that can and has been revoked by legislation numerous times. Congress cannot revoke the citizenship of a constitutional, 14th Amendment citizen without that citizen’s consent per SCOTUS.
As you know, the Constitution does not define “natural-born citizen.” It does, however, grant Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. In order to fulfil that power/duty, Congress must first determine who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t. They look to the 14th Amendment for the most obvious answer. Then they must consider various other factors about one’s birth circumstances to decide if someone requires naturalization.
As it stands now, Congress has decided that those to whom they grant citizenship at birth by bloodline (jus sanguinis) do not require naturalization.
Therefore, Ted Cruz, who is a statutory citizen at & by birth, is IMHO eligible to the presidency according to the will of Congress. Unless and until SCOTUS decides to rule on whether or not statutory citizenship is equivalent to constitutional citizenship (not naturalized), that’s where we stand.
I welcome continued “intelligent” discussion on the issue. Emotion? well, not so much.
I like Cruz. He is poking the progressive hornets nest appropriately. Conservatives need to be aware that there are eligibility questions regarding Cruz. Expect the Left to come back at us with the same questions we had about Obamugabe (and could NOT prove because of his sealed records).
(It is too late now but) If Cruz is considering a POTUS run, he should seal all of his past records....NOW!
They are reserving the ability to make a ruling defining “natural born citizen” sometime later, when there is a person they HAVE to grant standing to - namely, Hillary Clinton.
People, please drop whatever pet argument you have and see how this has been set up. The whole thing of denying standing so NBC has not been legally defined, point-blank, is a strategic move. The R’s have a lot of people coming up in the ranks whose eligibility could be questioned. By denying standing they killed 2 birds with one stone - they kept Obama in office and they reserved this great legal weapon to be used if somebody dangerous to the communists (like Cruz) ever gets elected. It’s a double insurance policy for them.
By poo-poohing Obama’s eligibility problem or by arguing that we already know Cruz is eligible so we don’t need a ruling, we keep that insurance plan intact. Look at this strategically; I guarantee you that THEY are.
What else would you expect from a corrupt, Chicago style commie mob government?
Just because their corruption prevents a ruling or a hearing, doesn't mean it is an illegitimate issue.
Be well, my friend.
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.