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 ...
The difference with Obama is that the US-citizen parent he was allegedly born to was not old enough to confer US citizenship on Obama according to the statutes of Congress at the time. If Obama was truly born to 18-year-old Stanley Ann Dunham (and it should be noted that the state registrar of HI would not verify that fact) somewhere outside of the US, then Obama was NOT born a US citizen and had to be naturalized at some point.
The HI state registrar was asked point-blank to verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Honolulu on the island of Oahu to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama and though Hawaii law required the registrar to verify every one of those facts that he could certify as being claimed on a legally valid BC, the registrar would not verify ANY of those facts. Just FYI. It’s not actually germane to the subject of the thread but is a fact that the general public really needs to know. We have absolutely no clue what Obama’s birth facts are because he has no legally-valid birth record in the United States.
Jim, please check this out.
This one says he/she sees a storm brewing if Ted decides to run in 2016.
Predicting dire, bad consequences over birther issues.
FourtySeven, that isn’t going to be allowed to take over on this site.
This site in the person of JR has already said that.
Multiple times.
And your statement on the birther issue in re: Ted Cruz, is among the positions on that issue that JR has already pronounced as FALSE.
Cruz was born a citizen. His citizenship cannot be revoked except by a dictatoral action, but so can yours under such a scenario. I do believe we have a law that says a citizen can renounce citizenship.
Have you read anything I have posted about how the definition of NBC has been left open by the courts (by denying everybody “standing”) so that when Hillary challenges Cruz’ eligibility the compromised John Roberts can be told what to rule and throw Cruz out of the Presidency?
Are you willing to allow that to happen because we never got a court to define NBC BEFORE Cruz is challenged by Hillary?
I appreciate your quoting Blackstone about British law, because he was also the source of the 1790 law equating “natural born citizen” with “natural born subject”.
You have yet to give me the constitutional section that defines “natural born”.
I assume your silence means that you are aware there is no definition of “natural born” in the Constitution.
Plus, you are wrong. You either need to be naturalized to be a citizen or you are born already a citizen.
It is not in there. No definition of “natural born” is given in the Constitution
I never said it was try reading a little slower and go back to your first post that I responded to. sheesh. I will not argue NBC as it only matters what the Supreme Court says it is and is not, anything else is just argument. Kinda like “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th amendment.
It makes sense that someone would want a clear ruling, but what I’m saying is that the courts have not been given that authority. It lies with congress according to the constitution to make all laws touching on naturalization.
I do not trust the black-robes.
I want elected officials doing this.
“Cruz was born a citizen. His citizenship cannot be revoked except by a dictatoral action,....”
You are mistaken about that. See the U.S. State Department Foreign Affairs Manual where it discusses the laws concerning citizenship for persons born abroad with one or two U.S. citizen parents. Note the compliance requirements to qualify for gaining status as a U.S. citizen by application to the U.S. State Department. Also note the sanctions in the event of fraud. also note there is no jurisdiction for such sanctions for a natural born U.S. citizen.
If a person renounces their US citizenship are they still a natural born citizen of the US? They haven’t been naturalized.
What inferences would SCOTUS make about that, based on naturalization laws?
I ask this because there are many different inferences that can be made, but the only legally binding ones are the ones a COURT has actually made. That’s why we need court rulings in order to ensure that an inference is LEGALLY BINDING.
So far nobody seems willing to engage in what I see as the bigger issue here: as long as we have to go by inferences rather than by settled, clearly-stated rulings, the courts can rule whatever they want to even in the middle of an election - and by doing so they can wait until Cruz is already elected and it’s too late for conservatives to nominate somebody else, and they can rule him ineligible.
Would you have any objection with the courts giving a clear ruling on what the term “natural born citizen” means? Preferably BEFORE we put all our eggs in the Cruz basket? Why or why not?
And I will note here: I LIKE CRUZ. I HOPE HE IS ELIGIBLE. If SCOTUS is going to say he’s not, though, I would want them to do it while we still have time to nominate Sarah Palin instead (or somebody else). Hillary will challenge. SCOTUS will rule, and it will depend on John Roberts, the guy who gave us Obamacare. Are you willing for that to happen at a time when it’s too late for us to do anything about it?
Any organization can be controlled by only 20 people.
Currently the Marxist Obamanation Administration has the following top 20 controlling people:
1. Barry Soetoro, the Democrat’s POS golfer
2. Reid, the Barry Pocket Veto
3. Boehner, the Democrat’s Republican Cave-In vote in the House
4. Traitor John Roberts embedded in the SCOTUS
5. AG Holder, the lawless Sheriff embedded in the DOJ
6. US President Valerie Jarrett embedded in the White House, State Department, DOJ, IRS, NSA, and the Leftstream Media.
7. McConnell, the Democrat’s Republican Cave-In vote in the Senate
8 to 17. The weekly “top 10” Broadcast people in the Leftstream TV Media
18. Warren Buffet, King of the XL Bypass Railroad.
19. Putin, Barry’s Mentor on Foreign Policy
20. Michelle “All this for a flag!” Obama.
________
So far, we Conservatives only have Cruz and Lee as CONSISTENT Conservative Leaders.
That leaves 18 people yet to join in to put america back on the RIGHT track.
My question to you is: Would Lee as POTUS and Cruz as Majority Leader in the US Senate be a better use of their talents than the reverse?
The courts are given the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and deciding cases and controversies arising out of the Constitution or the laws. There is no way to get around the courts deciding this issue. As soon as Hillary challenges Cruz’ eligibility there will be a justiciable case and the judiciary will HAVE to rule on it. The only thing we are capable of controlling is WHEN they rule on it - specifically whether it is AFTER Cruz is elected and the court destroys our only chance of a conservative in the White House, or before we choose our candidate in the primary so we know whether the person we nominate will ever be allowed by the courts to become President.
Which time seems better to you?
“I have to ask about his ties to corporate America via his wife.”
Really? Conservatives now look to question and malign people who are in the business world?
Has she done something illegal?
Thanks, TOL.
It wasn’t if, it was only a question of when.
I don’t know enough about Lee to know for sure. If you’ve got a sound guy in as POTUS, he will appoint a sound Cabinet and the POTUS himself doesn’t matter so much. His ability to communicate would be most important, I think. But the leadership in the House and Senate are critical roles, because that involves uniting people with wisdom. The Presidency gets the glory but I actually think the more critical players should be in Congressional leadership roles. Of course, electability is critical for the POTUS, because he has to get elected in order to install good, sound Cabinet, judges, etc.
Not sure if that answers your question...
Um..I wasn't quoting Blackstone. It was from the first legal treatise written after Ratification which was an annotated version of Blackstone.
---
because he was also the source of the 1790 law equating “natural born citizen” with “natural born subject”.
LOL! Please show me the law that equates “natural born citizen” with “natural born subject”, as the word 'subject' is not contained in the 1790 Naturalization Act.
-----
You have yet to give me the constitutional section that defines “natural born”.
Again, you mis-ask the question to try to rephrase the argument. The Constitution is a document of limited, ENUMERATED federal power, so any authority to do as you claim will be listed. Please quote that section for me.
----
Plus, you are wrong.
Oh, yes..... the 'You're wrong because I say so ' argument.
If you have any evidence to counter my previous post that no one was FORCED to be a citizen against their will at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, please provide it.
You are absolutely right, darlin’. And I’m glad I didn’t offend you.
Ok, if you think it’s possible to orchestrate Cruz and Lee as Senate leaders, be my guest.
To me, reality is screaming that the real world doesn’t work that way.
We can’t orchestrate what Cruz and Lee do, and we can’t orchestrate the broken Senate to put Cruz and Lee in as its leaders.
And there is no way to skirt the birthers by saying, oh, let’s end this rift, this split, by just having Cruz stay where he is and not have him run, even if he chooses to and even if he is the wildly preferred candidate on our side.
Not happening, in my view.
Why are you ignoring my posts?
“Great. So long has he denounces his Canadian citizenship, then, sounds like he’s good to go.”
He has done that.
No, I’m not. The FAM says that those who don’t notify that they are citizens have until such and such an age to do so. Since the same general section deals with renunciation, I’ve always thought they were saying that non-notification is the equivalent of foregoing the citizenship. And, if I recall correctly, even after the so-called age, there have been those who finally decided they wanted it and have been upheld in their citizenship.
In other words, they are not stripped of citizenship. Instead, they are treated as if you are in an inactive file.
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.