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 real problem that we have is that the judiciary is claiming they don’t need to rule - that it’s nobody’s business and nobody is being harmed by us not having any answers.
The states can grant legal standing for people so that the courts HAVE to address an issue on the minds of the people, can’t they?
I wish I knew who all was a lawyer so I could ping them all and we could try to address the root of the problem, which is a system - including the judiciary - that says we the people have no standing to make any difference in anything. The whole system is set up for us to choose which lemming to send to the system and then that lemming becomes part of the system built to keep itself safe from we the people. When it comes to Congress’ criminality, the root of the problem is that we the people are not able to file criminal charges. That gives somebody like Eric Holder the ability to obstruct ALL law enforcement involving politicians.
That’s a root that we HAVE to address. On eligibility and a milion other issues, the system has to allow we the people to have buy-in, has to make the system accountable to we the people and NOT just to whoever we send to DC or our state bureaucracies.
Your link isn’t working for me.
I’m guessing they weren’t allowing them circa 1970, the year of Cruz Jr’s birth, to maintain Cuban citizenship.
Nevertheless, the general rule under the 1947 law was that they could NOT have dual citizenship, so that a strong indication that Cruz Sr would have dropped his Cuban citizenship when adopting Canada, and there’s circumstantial evidence that Cruz Senior did not continue with his Cuban citizenship, i.e., that he renounced Canadian citizenship when he acquired US citizenship.
There is no evidence that Cruz took advantage of any exception.
What are you actually trying to say?
He was only in Canada for eight years and he didn’t become a US citizen until 2005. What’s your point? Do you disagree with the timeline?
If Texas defined NBC in a way that Ted Cruz was eligible, would the feds have any say over it beyond that point, since Texas found him “qualified” to be on their ballot?
Of course, CA could define Arnold Schwartzneggar as eligible in the same way. Would it be nobody but Californians’ business?
I don’t know. When AZ had their eligibility bill there was the threat of suing over the constitutionality of it because a state can’t have its own definition of NBC. AZ backed down because they were already under attack by our own federal government as well as under attack from illegals and drug cartels. But if they had held on, we could have had the judiciary giving us legal answers before the 2012 election. The DOJ would have HAD to challenge, if only to try to protect Obama.
If the state’s definition went with the current law of both those born in the country and those born overseas with at least one qualifying US citizen parent, then the only ones potentially harmed would be anyone denied something like ballot access in a presidential primary because they didn’t fit current law. It’s hard to imagine that becoming a lawsuit.
If all states adopted a similar law, then we’d have the bodies authorized to conduct elections, state legislatures, in charge of the definition, and that would be just about what the Constitution envisions.
I’m saying that on receiving Canadian citizenship that Cruz Senior probably dropped Cuban citizenship. The 1947 law required it with some exceptions, as you’ve noted. (I couldn’t get your last link to work), and when Cruz Sr adopted US citizenship, he dropped only Canadian citizenship, suggesting again that the Cuban had already been dropped.
So, odds are Cruz Jr has only US citizenship and Canadian citizenship, if he hasn’t already dropped it. I know he was to the paperwork to that effect. Although, with his father dropping it, I can see why he would think it didn’t apply to him.
My understanding is that state law cannot supercede federal law, so California could not find Schwarzeneggar to be a citizen with the right to the presidency, since he is obviously a naturalized citizen.
Texas, however, could simply affirm current law and make that their definition of “natural born citizen” for presidential primaries and elections held within their state.
Just my opinion, of course, but it seems to be reasonable.
When I think about the what-if’s and realize that if we had all stood with Arizona’s eligibility bill, Holder would have sued and the courts would have been forced to rule on NBC... I realize how important the detractors in places like FR really were to the strategy of keeping the question dividing the conservative base. Soros et al knew we had Jindal and Rubio coming up and that this issue would divide us. Now there’s Cruz and the issue is still dividing us - and the only way that is ever going to stop is by getting a legally-binding ruling to settle the issue.
They want the issue unresolved. It gives them a weapon and it keeps conservatives divided.
That’s one reason why I ask if people have any objections to the issue being resolved in court. It seems to me that there are 2 reasons somebody might object:
1) if they’re afraid the courts will rule wrongly now but can be brought to a point where they will rule rightly if we can hold off on the decision for a while..... or
2) if they want the issue unresolved so Hillary can have a lethal weapon to use if Cruz wins, which is also made less likely if the conservative base is divided over this unresolved issue.
I think it’s important for us to clarify our reasons and sort them out. What’s scary about the above scenario is that strong constitutionalists thinking #1 would appear to be the same as Cruz-hating GOP-e’s thinking #2 and leftists thinking #2.
For those who are thinking #1, it has to be alarming to be on the same side as George Soros and Karl Rove. Seems like there has to be a different option...
But how would we know whether that was what the Founding Fathers intended? Right now the Founding Fathers’ wisdom is looking mighty good by comparison to what we have today. When I was a kid I wanted to do what I wanted, and thought my parents were stupid. Now that I’ve lived a bit, I really value my parents’ wisdom and want to make sure I hear it.
I don’t want to get around what the Founding Fathers said; I want to truly understand their wisdom. I hear you guys debating and I don’t know what to think. I want an earnest answer from an honest, non-threatened authority that values the Founding Fathers’ wisdom as much as I do. That’s what the judiciary is supposed to be, and what they are supposed to do. It’s like a pastor who is given Biblical and theological training so he can understand and interpret the Bible and help normal people understand what God says to us and does for us.
What would happen when CA rules Schwartzneggar to be a NBC?
Out of the Obama cases that were heard and opinions cut, a handful went beyond the needs of the case and opined as to the qualifications. I believe they all cited Wong Kim ark for the proposition that "born on US soil to persons legally resident" was sufficient.
I think there were similar excursions in the McCain case, but obviously using a different basis for finding him qualified.
-- The states can grant legal standing for people so that the courts HAVE to address an issue on the minds of the people, can't they? --
Only for state courts, and issues the feds choose to pick up (like Arizona passing a law that its state law enforcement must facilitate enforcement of federal immigration law).
-- When it comes to Congress' criminality, the root of the problem is that we the people are not able to file criminal charges. --
The founders foresaw the possibility of systematic failure, and wrote about it. They abhorred democracy, and with good reason.
-- On eligibility and a milion other issues, the system has to allow we the people to have buy-in, has to make the system accountable to we the people ... --
There will always be some fraction of the public that is disappointed. The people in power (and this is not just in the US) mollify the general public with "open and free elections" (there is your say so), open courts that publish their rationale and conclusions, and means to remove public officials who aren't doing their jobs.
IMO, it's possible for the most important parts of that to be a sham. Firearms decisions are a great example of duplicity and in-you-face lies by the courts. They don;t get called out on it, and not enough people are willing to take action (which could be passive, see Gandhi) to resist the tyrants.
There are lots of problems. Dishonest and power-hungry micro-managers in charge of public policy and substantial parts of personal lives; a public that values security more than freedom; a public that is ignorant of history, personally selfish, and barely capable of rational thought let alone critical thinking; a long-standing repetition of certain public works as inherently proper (democracy, the right to vote, public education); politicians who work at one thing - reelection - and studiously avoid accountability for what their legislative and executive bodies are tasked with; a press that actively promotes all forms of socialism and lies like a rug; the list goes on.
Work locally. At least you can have a positive impact on your family, your neighbors, your customers, your co-workers, and maybe even your local politicians (some of whom are apt to be just as much a skunk as the big boys). Ability to influence things on a national scale? Forget it. The national government should be an object of ridicule, scorn, and contempt. It's way beyond the wrongs that sparked the Declaration of Independence, but those days are forever gone. Population density is too high, stakes are too high, etc.
Anyway, most of the people pulling the levers of power will tell you (and most of them believe it) that they ARE accountable, and that the system is working exactly as it was designed. That this is the best country on earth, and that people have never had as much freedom and wealth as Americans enjoy today. They live in a bubble, and like Nero, will be the last to know (if they ever do) that they are utter failures.
CA wouldn’t have to rule Schwartzneggar NBC; they could just say that it’s nobody’s business whether he is or isn’t, and as long as he is willing to swear that he’s qualified then he is.
What would have to happen at that point, for the US constitution to be protected?
What if, in preparation for Schwartzneggar, Congress made a law saying that anybody who has been naturalized before 2012 is statutorily declared to be a citizen from birth? Would you have any problem with that? Does the Constitution allow that?
Is it the same one? I'm sorry. I thought you'd gone to a different one. My bad. Plus, my weather's turning sour here in rural Ohio and I'm on satellite. Sometimes, some things work and other don't, and then the whole system goes down. It'll probably be down by about 1 pm est anyway.
Schwarz obviously is naturalized, so no matter which side of the NBC debate you’re on, naturalized doesn’t fit into it.
I, of course, think the 1790 law says that the Founders considered either place of birth or blood descent to equally create a “natural born citizen”. Therefore, I have no problem with a Texas law defining NBC according to current law because current law includes both land and blood.
And??
It won't happen. He's openly a naturalized citizen, and being on the ballot in just one state is worthless, even a state as big as CA.
The first real hurdle will be within the GOP, as the presidential wanna-be's duke it out. I can well imagine a challenge to Cruz's eligibility coming from a member of the GOP.
Eisenhower was tasked with coming up with birth evidence in order to get on the ballot in Texas, and the fact of most interest was location of birth. I assume Cruz's birth certificate shows his birthplace to be Canada.
-- It's like a pastor who is given Biblical and theological training so he can understand and interpret the Bible and help normal people understand what God says to us and does for us. --
Yeah, well, the judges are about as trustworthy in their task of applying and teaching the law, as the Reverend Jesse Jackson, or Wright, or (pick your poison here). They claim to have the wisdom and honesty, but if you peek behind the curtain (read the law, or the Bible yourself), you find out they are like the Wizard of Oz.
Courts do not value the Founding Father's wisdom. They serve a different master.
Also, that still allows somebody like Hillary the means to sabotage somebody like Cruz if he wins a Presidential election. The Department of State manual on citizenship says that the federal definitions for citizenship by birth don’t necessarily to the Constitutional term “natural born”. The avenue for challenge is left wide open. And that is an Obama regime document reminding that the avenue for challenge in the federal courts is left wide open.
and what is your question?
And??
So what?
Your transparant, snide, snarky little campaign against Rafael continues, I see.
But why here on FR?
Why US??
Good.grief.
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.