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 ...
So you don't think any of the revolutionaries were left in 1795????
That's not really reasonable, mamatexan.
What in the blue blazes does my opinion of how long 'revolutionaries' remained here have to do with anything?
Your comment is nonsensical.
The bar just gets lower and lower.
First it was the CIC had to have served active duty military service to command our troops but Libs said “Oh no. We could miss having the greatest President of all time if we held to that standard”.
Next it is the lying, concealing record hiding Obama who is vetted by Pelosi and the MSM to be eligible for the CIC because Corporate America bought and paid for him.....along with his Muslim Brotherhood cohorts.
Next, the former Governor of California comes out saying he wants the law changed so he, Schwarzenegger can be CIC. Look over there....a squirrel.
Now we have the beloved Ted Cruz, whose wife is VP of a major money org saying he is eligible to be CIC. Look over there....a dog wagging its tail.
We are being conned! Cruz. Is. Not. Eligible. Nor is the Kenyan, nor is the Austrian nor should anyone be who has not served in the US Military and born of two U.S. citizens.
The idea that Cruz' wife is some kind of nefarious money org leader and he is just fooling us, waiting to spring the trap on us because he's exactly the same as Ahnold and the Zero is laughable.
*sniff*sniff*
You don’t hear the way he talks like a used car salesman? I’ve heard him interviewed, and he always sounds like he is constantly adjusting his words to ply to the audience. I don’t trust the guy. Maybe it is his lawyer-ness. I don’t know. I guess since he says the right things, I am supposed to trust him completely. I don’t.
The point of quoting the FAM in my last post was to demonstrate that the U.S. government endorses the concept of statutory citizenship. It makes no guarantee that citizenship granted pursuant to a statute is equivalent to citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In Rogers v. Bellei, SCOTUS stipulates that citizenship granted at birth by statute is a Congressional generosity to which such citizens have no constitutional right. Further, the Court says that if Congress had wanted to do so it could have forced such citizens to go through the more arduous process of naturalization.
So, while you and I agree that Congress has the power to say who requires naturalization and who doesn't. It seems wrong to me that Ted Cruz has no constitutional right to his citizenship (remember SCOTUS said it's up to Congress) but the child of an illegal who is born on U.S. soil does have a constitutional right to his citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The former may be revoked by law; the latter may not.
I think it’s 4 liberals, 2 moderates (Kennedy and Roberts) and 3 conservatives.
But I agree with you, these trolls and their bunk arguments are really getting on my nerves, I’d thought they would have shut up by now.
Their nonsense hasn’t gotten rid of Obama so let’s use to tear down the conservative frontrunner! Makes perfect sense! For a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Some of them are long time members, must just be too invested in the crazy nonsense to let it go.
Link doesn’t work.
NOPE.
I don’t know that she is nefarious but I have seen enough to know when something is too good to be true...it usually is a con. Ted Cruz is great but he has some baggage and I’m looking at it with eyes wide open.
Do you have a cold or do you have something to say?
No, darlin’. The “trolls” have read it over and over since about 2008. If you had participated in those threads, you would know that. That law and that passage have been discussed and debated for five years on the eligibility threads. It’s not new evidence.
Maybe I misunderstood your point, but what you don’t seem to get is that the passage you cited does not actually “define” the term “natural born citizen.” That passage merely declared how the term shall be applied to the particular cases of those born abroad to citizen parents.
I was born on U.S. soil to citizen parents - so I am a natural born citizen. Yet that passage doesn’t apply to me. So the passage is clearly not a definition. It is merely a usage of the term.
(i.e. That passage is a pointer to data but is not itself the data being pointed to.)
I think he’s smelling something, coming from you.
That's a point I made with Lakeshark a few weeks/months ago. They're not all trolls. Some of them are good conservatives with good intentions. What they fail to realize though is that they want three words of the Constitution to be honored and enforced while the rest of the Constitution gets destroyed.
Ted Cruz will defend the whole Constitution and attempt to prevent its destruction. Which is more important to our FRiends? Saving the whole Constitution or enforcing three words at the expense of the rest of it?
You haz a smell. Kinda like Kabumpo.
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.