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 ...
No question Cruz is a Citizen of the U.S.
He may have dual citizenship with Canada.
What criteria must be met before you consider something a 'fact'?
The facts about “natural born citizen” since that is the discussion that’s driven most everything.
It cannot be demonstrated that 2 citizen parentage within the confines of the 50 states is the only way to acquire natural born citizen status.
No one has presented any facts supporting that conclusion.
A fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true.
When applied to an opinion, the facts must be relevant and must support the opinion.
-----
A fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true.
LOL!!!!That's an odd statement from someone, who over the last several months, has repeatedly harped on the 1790 Naturalization Act despite the FACT multiple posters have pointed out to you the 'natural born' clause in it was repealed 5 years later.
-------
No, the FACT is you're not seeking demonstrable 'proof', you're just continually trying to confirm what you think you already know......
so ya'll have a nice day.
“Despite anything else about Rubio, he was born in the USA, and the 14th amendment makes him a citizen.”
These dummies will claim that makes him a “statutory citizen” and not a natural born citizen.
The 1790 Law IS a fact.
The 1790 Law DOES say that a natural born citizen includes the overseas born child of a US citizen.
The 1790 Law WAS debated in Congress.
The 1790 Congressional Debate DID include discussion of Blackstone’s background for “natural born subject”.
Those are facts. They are irrefutable.
The 1795 Law is a fact.
The Congress Did repeal the 1790 law.
The 1795 STILL included blood-descent citizenship.
The 1795 Law was replaced by the 1797 Law
The 1797 Law was repealed and replaced with the 1802 law.
Which was repealed and replaced at least by 1870 Naturalization Law
On until today.
It is a fact that the law continued throughout, including today, to recognize the right of automatic citizenship by virtue of blood descent
Nope, he’s a 14th amendment citizen, so nothing statutory about it. I don’t know where they get that. The same with Jindal, actually.
I don’t remember the Rubio case very well, but was his mother naturalized before his birth? I don’t think his father was.
Either way, they were both legal immigrants as well as under Cuban refugee law.
Cruz’s Canadian citizenship, which he is in the process of renouncing, is not a constitutional problem. Anyone who doesn’t want a president or vice-president who was born with another nation’s citizenship through no fault of their own, can vote against that candidate.
Palin/Cruz 2016
I think we could all just ask each other, “How is what you said going to fix the problem at hand?”
***If we clean our own house, the GOP will clean theirs.
The topic of this thread is the definition of NBC. We all have different opinions but in the end all that counts is what the judiciary says it means, and they can pull any definition out of a hat any time they want to,
***That is exactly what the SCOTUS did when they upheld multiple previous rulings that said the participants had “no standing”. You don’t have to look towards Obamacare as the standard when it pertains to the NBC issue, just look to all those “no standing” rulings like Berg vs. Obama.
they can pull any definition out of a hat any time they want to, and have already demonstrated through the Obamacare ruling that it can be totally contrary to all the jurisprudence they’ve led people to believe could be trusted. They have the ultimate weapon for political terrorism.
***Terrorism is for the disenfranchised. What is going on is political tyranny.
So what do we do about it?
***What CAN be done about an ineligible candidate being elected and, under the 20th amendment, QUALIFIED as president because SCOTUS didn’t do their job? The constitution is already trampled; the damage is already done. Now there’s a new face in town, ineligible but conservative. If he wins the election he’ll likely QUALIFY as well, due to SCOTUS abrogating their responsibility.
What solutions have been offered here on this thread?
***I offered the VOLUNTARY conservative litmus matrix for cleaning up FR. You have to start somewhere.
How does the talk on this thread get us any closer to fixing the problem?
***It doesn’t and it won’t, because the only thing left is actions which leave the blood of tyrants on the floor.
Do we just hope the issue goes away, knowing what Hillary is like and knowing how the grossly hypocritical media is pushing this issue already?
***That appears to be the case. But what difference does it make if an ineligible conservative qualifies to be president? The damage has already been done to the constitution because an ineligible libtard has qualified to be president.
Would that help us solve the problem?
***You’ll need to drill down on what the problem really is. The problem is that the constitution was shat upon by Obama. An ineligible candidate was elected, and the ineligible president elect did not “fail to qualify” per the language in the 20th amendment. SCOTUS didn’t do their job. Now we have an ineligible conservative who wants to drive down the same path blazed by the ineligible libtard. If the ineligible conservative is DISqualified by the SCOTUS for the same reasons the ineligible Libtard should have been disqualified, we’ll likely have civil war. The SCOTUS didn’t stick their neck out for the goose, so they’re obliged not to stick their neck out for the gander.
The Marxist has set the “ prec·e·dent “!
***I agree. An ineligible Marxist was elected and, per the 20th amendment as president elect, he QUALIFIED to be president, simply by the inaction of the SCOTUS whose job it was to do something about it (to uphold the constitution). Now an ineligible solid conservative might get elected and QUALIFIED in the same manner. The constitutional damage has already been done, by our current pResident & SCOTUS.
Why don’t you tell the site owner Jim Robinson that he was correct when he advocated an unconstitutional approach to the NBC/Certifigate issue?
To: Jim Robinson
If they take the case and discover that he’s not a natural born citizen then they should declare him ineligible and call for a new election.
***Calling for a new election wouldn’t be constitutional. The 20th amendment calls out the constitutional process if the PE fails to qualify.
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
Cruz is the best Leader we've seen since Sarah Palin, and he's the only one that seems willing to put up a fight.
I can honestly say I don't care whether or not he meets the original meaning of Article II, he is the only reasonable choice at this point, and the Democrats didn't care about the rules anyway.
I still believe my argument is correct, and that given sufficient time I could convey the reasoning and evidence necessary to establish it, but as I said, it is contrary to our best interests and those of our nation so I feel obligated to just drop it.
I would go further and suggest that we all solicit Jim Robinson to direct moderators to reject any future eligibility threads which focus on Ted Cruz. I see no way in which discussing the topic is beneficial to our movement or our goals.
I am going to drop this discussion. I do not see how it can be of any benefit to Conservatives or to the Nation to continue it.
Cruz is the best Leader we’ve seen since Sarah Palin, and he’s the only one that seems willing to put up a fight.
I can honestly say I don’t care whether or not he meets the original meaning of Article II, he is the only reasonable choice at this point, and the Democrats didn’t care about the rules anyway.
I still believe my argument is correct, and that given sufficient time I could convey the reasoning and evidence necessary to establish it, but as I said, it is contrary to our best interests and those of our nation, so I feel obligated to just drop it.
I would go further and suggest that we all solicit Jim Robinson to direct moderators to reject any future eligibility threads which focus on Ted Cruz. I see no way in which discussing the topic is beneficial to our movement or our goals.
I am going to drop this discussion. I do not see how it can be of any benefit to Conservatives or to the Nation to continue it.
Cruz is the best Leader we’ve seen since Sarah Palin, and he’s the only one that seems willing to put up a fight.
I can honestly say I don’t care whether or not he meets the original meaning of Article II, he is the only reasonable choice at this point, and the Democrats didn’t care about the rules anyway.
I still believe my argument is correct, and that given sufficient time I could convey the reasoning and evidence necessary to establish it, but as I said, it is contrary to our best interests and those of our nation, so I feel obligated to just drop it.
I would go further and suggest that we all solicit Jim Robinson to direct moderators to reject any future eligibility threads which focus on Ted Cruz. I see no way in which discussing the topic is beneficial to our movement or our goals.
I am aware of that, and it was fully my intention to do so, but when I tried to remember how to spell her Nickname, I couldn't.
Quick, without looking, properly spell the nickname of the Freeper known as "Texas Rangerette."
H3ll, for that matter, a few times I had to go back and look to figure out how to spell yours. Spelling people's nicknames has always been a problem for me here at Free Republic, unless the names are very simple.
Mea Culpa.
Beats me how one could apply the Constitution to someone whose identity is unknown.
***That’s precisely what the SCOTUS did.
If 99% of people are so darn ignorant that they can’t understand the meaning of an important term in the Constitution (the supreme law of the land), the Constitutional republic called the United States of America has no hope for survival.
***I think historians will actually trace the crossover point for when America became an empire to this issue, in particular Berg vs. Obama in 2008. Just like historians tracing the end of the Roman Republic to Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon river, this will be the threshold.
As for Obama, he too is constitutionally ineligible as well, in all probability, ... is in all likelihood a usurper of the office, but that travesty doesn’t ipso facto make Ted Cruz constitutionally eligible.
***Nope. Obama was ineligible, and Cruz is ineligible. Obama was QUALIFIED by the SCOTUS under the 20th amendment due to their own abrogation of responsibility. So it is likely that Cruz, though ineligible like Obama, would be QUALIFIED in the same manner. That’s why Cruz is saying, “let the courts decide”.
Might makes right, huh? Where was your concern over this constitutional issue 5 years ago when it really mattered with Obama? Only now you choose to troll on this issue when the constitutional damage has been done, and you can throw darts at constitutional conservatives?
He is a U.S. citizen. Fact.
Is he a natural born citizen, we shall see.
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.