Posted on 01/08/2016 6:00:09 PM PST by FR_addict
A document uncovered by Breitbart News indicates that the parents of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) were named on a Calgary list of electors for Canada's federal election of July 8, 1974. Ted Cruz parents are listed as Cruz, Eleanor, Mrs. nd Cruz, Raphael, self employed, both at 920 Riverdale Avenue, South West in Calgary, Alberta.
Canadian law restricts (and restricted) federal voting rights to Canadian citizens.
In a statement to Breitbart News—the full text of which follows this article—Jason Johnson, chief strategist for Cruz for President, said that “the document itself does not purport to be a list of ‘registered Canadian voters.’ All this might conceivably establish is that this list of individuals (maybe) lived at the given addresses. It says nothing about who was a citizen eligible to vote.â€
Johnson added: Eleanor was never a citizen of Canada, and she could not have been under the facts or the law. In short, she did not live in Canada long enough to be a Canadian citizen by the time Cruz was born in 1970: Canadian law required 5 years of permanent residence, and she moved to Canada in December 1967—only 3 years before Senator Cruz’s birth. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
That would be true of Obama if he was born outside the Country since his Mother did not meet the Residency Requirement and his Father was not a Citizen.
In the case of Cruz, his Mother was a United States Citizen, therefore he was and is a Citizen at Birth.
Please quote the specific language in the Constitution that says an NBC has to be born in the United States by two American Citizen Parents.
BTW - I’m a Cruz (1), Trump (2) kind of guy. I am not afflicted with either CDS or TDS.
However, I am a afflicted with BDS, JDS, RDS, CDS, BCDS, HCDS, KDS and every other DS you can think of.
A Plain Citizen. he is NOT natural born because his father was not a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth.
Yes he is an American, but he is NOT a natural born Citizen.
A tree is a plant, but not all plants are trees.
“Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.”
No, he did not. And I’ve posted the pictures to prove my point. He never discussed it, nor did any translation use the phrase until AFTER the US Constitution.
I’ve also posted multiple references to NBC being used prior to the US Constitution, by a state legislature.
My comprehension is fine. Yours is a bit suspect.
That's not a type of citizen. The choices are naturalized or natural born.
I don’t believe how you can not SEE clearly that Vattel says: LES NATURES, ou INDIGNES font ceux qui font nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.
Translation: The Natural born or natives are those who are born in the country, of Parents Citizens.
PLEASE NOTE : BORN in the country of CITIZEN PARENTS. Do you see parents? It is PLURAL which there is NO Doubt means BOTH parents.
I speak French fluently. Do you? Obviously not.
So, you’re saying because the parent was a women she’s less than equal and doesn’t get to pass natural born to her children.
Have you ever watched a movie called “What the Death Man Heard.?
The whole plot came down to two words and everything was over.
Simply I do.
I have been studying this situation for two or three weeks and it will come down to one question that Ted Cruz will have to answer. The answer will be: “I did not.”
I know this now because of this article. His court case will be as short as was in “What the Death Man Heard.”
We have all argued about this and not even come close to the real problem, but the answer to the real problem in in this article.
I may give my question to Jim Robinson or John Robinson for safe keeping,just so I can not get out of this if I am wrong in my thinking.
I don't think I will spend anymore time with Ted's none birth problem.
Cheers!
There is no sanity at all with some of these people who cannot read with comprehension. They do not wish to know anything that conflicts with their ill advised beliefs!You should be “threatening” them!
Garbage, Trump has policy papers out that lay out his plans. If you are saying he won’t follow through on what he says he will do. The I will ask you what you base that on, because as far as can tell Trump has never publicly lied or said one thing only to do another. Now if you have an example of Trump doing that, then by all means point it out. Otherwise your statements are innuendo that is based on conjecture.
It’s not natural or naturalized. It’s common law versus statutory. If your citizenship is pusuant to a statutory authority that could be adopted, amended or repealed, then you are a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens are citizens by the inherent circumstances of their birth, not subject to any statutory requirements.
It says the naturals or indigenes. Not “Natural born citizen”.
There is a French phrase for that, used in legal documents, but Vattel did not use that French phrase. Vattel was writing about European law & Swiss law. Not English law, which he admits differed. And Vattel never used NBC. Period.
And “indigene” does not need to be translated, being an English word as well as French, and it does not mean “natural born citizen” in either language. We commonly use it as “indigenous person” in modern times.
NBC was a term of law, used in the US prior to the Constitution, and used interchangeably with “natural born subject”. Can you admit the latter, or do you want to live in La-La Land?
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged that the language of the US Constitution conformed to English Common Law, since that was the language of the day. And NBC was part of that common language, with a well known and accepted meaning brought over from NBS.
This is really quite simple. And it has NOTHING to do with Vattel.
He isn’t the most likeable, he’s the most highly capable and functional.
So based on your definition of NBC - born on US soil to TWO US citizens - a child born in the US of a single woman who is a US citizen would not be a "natural born citizen" if she got pregnant through a sperm bank?
I have never said Cruz was not an American citizen, but he is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN which is required to be president. I have explained the problem over and over and if you read this thread OR the one from yesterday, you just MIGHT get an idea about the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Frankly, my dear, I do not give a DAMN!
I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that
all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
also declares that
no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that
the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:
There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
To repeat, for emphasis:
“The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law.”
You are totally hopeless.
I have an article to write. Goodnight!
Do you know what a naturalized citizen is?
Maybe because none of the Founding Fathers were "natural born citizens" and they had to make allowance for that fact???
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.