Cruz says he is a US citizen 'by birth' despite being born in Canada

FOXNEWS.com ^ | October 28, 2013 | unknown

[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.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Please forgive me for being a pedantic little b*tch. I get all twisted up over legal definitions and such. I think that put us on the outs when we normally agree on many things.

[CodeToad]

I stand corrected, still, the previous statements made about it are not accurate at all. Just a bunch of CTS hogwash.

[Nero Germanicus]

That’s because you need plaintiffs with a “direct and tangible interest.” That’s why I suggested a Congressional Committee conducting a formal investigation.

It’s too late now but there were four Americans with perfect standing: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the only other people to receive Electoral votes and therefore they would be able to show DIRECT injury. ( a requirement for Article Three Standing). But they did not file suit or seek a judge’s Court Order.

[CodeToad]

” DIRECT injury”

I thought there was something along the lines of “you are not entitled to the votes so there is no injury” was said by one court.

[PhilDragoo]

I think he came to Hawaii in 1960, but don’t quote me on that. Fred would know. Fred, are you there?

I believe Fred indicated that on Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.'s 1962 passport application he claimed he had not been back to Kenya for seven years. (1962-7=1955)

Cora Weiss appears on video speaking effusively of an air lift flight from Kenya to Hawaii which in fact did not include this person.

There is no unimpeachable evidence supporting the current POTUS' claim to eligibility.

We may expect Hillary to behave in typical ruthless fashion recently demonstrated by her Tourettes-meets-Excorcist performance in re Benghazi.

Chief Justice John Roberts knows what he must do to avoid public disgrace.

I find the Constitution altogether with the Senator himself to be wholly adequate:

He told a television commentator his mother was born a citizen and he is a citizen and he'll leave it at that.

Gore in 2000 sent teams of lawyers to disenfranchise Florida service men and women voting by absentee ballot; Hillary is all that and more.

In certainty Cruz fits the spirit of the Constitutional phrasing and is impeccably qualified, the Cruz victory will be all the more vindicating.

[Marine_Uncle]

Responding to you to indicate I did read your suggestions in post #431.
Not being a lawyer, I would exclude myself from any suggestions.

[xzins]

FWIW, I disagree with xzins. I believe the founders intended the term "natural born citizen" to have independent fixed meaning - independent of statute, that is. "Rules for naturalization" play for people who are not natural born citizens, and Congress was expressly granted the power to open and close the gate of naturalization.

I do not believe that the Founders wrote the Constitution with the intent that the nation would come back to amend the constitution in order to define "natural born citizen." That would have been a silly trick. If they'd wanted it defined constitutionally, they would have defined it in the text and would not have PLANNED for some future Congress to pass it as an amendment.

That does not mean it cannot be defined by an amendment. I have no problem with it being defined by an amendment. I've not said that I do.

What I have said is that Congress has been given sufficient authority to define it by statute, and they have, although not directly using those words. They have simply established as many have said, who requires naturalization and who does not. Those who do not are born citizens and are eligible to the presidency. (I think that Buckeye, in good faith, is stating that since the definition of blood descent is by statute that that makes those "by birth" citizens, statutory citizens. In one sense, all of us are, but I do understand what he's saying. He's simply saying they have to meet certain requirements for their "by birth" citizenship to be proven. I would say they are automatically "by birth" citizens and the requirements are to acknowledge what they already are.)

[Nero Germanicus]

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:
(1) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
(2) The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.
(3) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive a portion of any fines collected by the government from their violation of law. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

[CodeToad]

I understand standing, and I think the courts have illegally ruled against it. Illegal because they violated the civil rights of the persons bringing the suits to have their cases heard.

[Kenny Bunk]

We like the laws that go our way but the laws that don't support our views are either bad laws or misinterpreted...

Well, Dusty, although I have spent many a pleasant evening in Holiday Inn Express Motels throughout our great nation, I must confess I actually have no idea whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II ... or Jr ... Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio are natural born citizens or not. I have a feeling ... I take a great notion ... if I had my 'druthers ... I would tend to say "No."

However, it is not my job or yours to convince our fellow FReepers. All I want is The SCOTUS to take one of the many very worthy appeals that have wended their weary way to their office and TELL ME what a Natural Born Citizen is. That's their job, ne ç'est pas?

Instead these blackrobed bumkissers have picked up their pay for 6 years now while dodging this unpleasant bullet under the lamest set of excuses ever seen in the history of the court. Now that, that I am not inventing. A couple of them have admitted it in public.

Please note that any finding they might make, any ruling they might care to offer, has absolutely noting to do with removing The Marxist MF from Mombasa. That isn't their job. The Congress is still 100% free to impeach, convict, or not. It's not about Obama. Too late for that. It's about the Constitution. Have we got one ... or not.

BTW, Ted Cruz is one hell of a guy! In fact, he and I have a lot in common. E.G., neither of us is free to interpret the Constitution in any way that binds our fellow citizens.

[Kenny Bunk]

Once again Butter, we have sailed the Great Circle Route back to the issue of state sovereignty.

The Governor and the AG of Nebraska are absolutely free right now to challenge any candidate for office on any grounds they might feel valid. In fact, I daresay they often have thrown candidates for state and local office from the ballot until the prospective candidate has established the necessary bona fides. Every state electoral official in the nation has, at various times, done exacrtly that.

There is no need for "legislation."

As you and I have often discussed, if one (1) state electoral official had done their job in 2007, we would have long ago had a ruling from the SCOTUS on this issue.

What is a "Natural Born Citizen?" Must we wait until several more Leftist Lesbians are appointed to the SCOTUS before we get an answer?

[Kenny Bunk]

PING

[Fred Nerks]

August 9, 1959 according to documentation:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File

His first interview in Hawaii was published BEFORE THE FIRST AIRLIFT FLIGHT LANDED AT IDELWILD AIRPORT.

Elizabeth Mooney (Kirk) claimed to have paid for his airfare and his first sponsor is shown as Frank Laubach, her employer.

[butterdezillion]

It’s imperative that we get an answer before then.

It’s become painfully clear that we the people cannot keep our bureaucrats in line at the state level, any more than we can at the federal level. If we the people are going to get any answers it’s going to have to be by forcing the courts to give somebody standing. If a state made a law based on the Vattel definition of NBC, would the feds be compelled to challenge it? Could a prospective candidate file for an injunction to keep it from going into effect until its constitutionality had been determined, and if that happened would it push it into federal jurisdiction?

I wish I knew more about the ins and outs of how you have to do these things.

[Fred Nerks]

I believe Fred indicated that on Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.'s 1962 passport application he claimed he had not been back to Kenya for seven years. (1962-7=1955)

That's what he was quoted as having said at an interview in Hawaii in 1962. That comment, if corrrect, suggests he left Kenya in 1955. However, he is photographed with Elizabeth Mooney and Frank Laubach in Kenya - and Laubach apparently visisted Kenya in 1958.

Might he have been to the US PRIOR to the 1959 arrival? It's possible. He claimed to have a degree in business adminstration - and he didn't get THAT in Kenya. He attended a trades-high school in Kenya until he was 18 year of age, according to the school records at Maseno.

[Fred Nerks]

...Cora Weiss appears on video speaking effusively of an air lift flight from Kenya to Hawaii which in fact did not include this person.

Cora Weiss has been forced to recant that claim. She now maintains the kenyan student reached Hawaii 'on a parallel flight' - but the next student airlift flight didn't take place until a year later.

CHECK HER OUT:

CORA WEISS ON KEYWIKI (TREVOR LOUDON)

[Nero Germanicus]

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied hearings to all the state and federal eligibility appeals that have reached the high court that were dismissed by original jurisdiction lower courts on grounds of standing.
In other words, they have let the original rulings stand.

[Venturer]

I agree that we need to get this thing settled, but I don’t see how we can settle it without settling exactly how Obama was made legitimate.

there is no way that if Obama is legitimate the Cruz isn’t.

What are the chances of opening up that can of worms after Obama has spent million hiding his facts.

[Fred Nerks]

That ‘parallel flight’ which was the first of the Kennedy airlifts landed in September, 1960:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/JFK-and-the-Student-Airlift.aspx?p=2

“...By mid-September, “Airlift Africa, 1960” brought 295 students to New York City on four separate flights. (Many people referred to it as “The Kennedy Airlift.”) Among those meeting with the students during their orientation week were Eunice Shriver of the Kennedy Foundation, playwright Lorraine Hansberry, and Malcolm X. The students enrolled in colleges and high schools in forty-one states and several Canadian provinces...”

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.wnd.com/images/101117honoluluarticle4.JPG

hard to read, but in the last few paragraphs of the article, you’ll find where the kenyan student apparently indicated, when he graduated in 1962...he had not been home to Kenya for seven years...

...which oddly enough, fits with the footnote in the Book THE ROCKERFELLERS co-authored by David Horowitz, that several thousand african students were brought to the US by the Rockefeller Trust through the Africa America Institute, commencing in the EARLY FIFTIES.

The teacher at Maseno made the comment that the kenyan student left for the US ‘for his education’ shortly after graduation from that high school, when he was 18.