How Donald Trump made the birther attack on Ted Cruz stick

"citizens of the United States at birth"

I agree that a person born under provisions of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 are citizens. However, being a natural born citizen is a special status of citizenship, not covered by Title 8. Being a natural born citizen as intended by the Framers of the Constitution is a person who is born in the U.S. to TWO citizen parents. The Framers did not want a person in the highest office in the land with conflicting national allegiances. A U.S. citizen parent and a Cuban citizen parent will cause conflicting national allegiances with their offspring. For instance, Let's say JFK had a Cuban father and a American mother. What would have happened with the Cuban missile crisis if JFK thought it was OK for Cuba to have Soviet missiles? It is not rocket science.

[[You confuse citizen with natural born citizen.]]

No I’m not- that was the requirement for presidency- the person simply needs to be a natural born citizen- I looked up the requirement for presidency and it stated ‘natural born citizen’ and gave the l ink I posted above- If you’ll note on that link- the definition is under the section for natural born citizen-

From the Website this is what was posted under those points I psoted in my previous post

“Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.”

[[ However, being a natural born citizen is a special status of citizenship, not covered by Title 8. Being a natural born citizen as intended by the Framers of the Constitution is a person who is born in the U.S. to TWO citizen parents. The Framers did not want a person in the highest office in the land with conflicting national allegiances.]]

There was never anything stated by them to this effect that I’m aware of-

“The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

[[A U.S. citizen parent and a Cuban citizen parent will cause conflicting national allegiances with their offspring.]]

Well my previous posts show that it doesn’t matter as long as one parent the mother was a citizen-

[[It is not rocket science.]]

Perhaps not, but it is law that anyone with one parent a citizen is allowed to run for president

Here is my justification. This takes lots of time to do because some of it is cut and past and causes lots of those curly ques that have to be taken out for you to read. I hope it is a good read for you:

The conditions to be a “natural born Citizen” are (1) birth in the United States (2) to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” when the child was born. No statute has been written that says differently. To do so violates the Constitution. As an example, the The 1790 Naturalization Act had wording describing a “natural born citizen” was repealed and replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act which dropped the “natural born” wording. It did so because the 1790 version violated the meaning that was intended by the Framers. To change that meaning would require an amendment to the Constitution. Let’s look at the Framer’s intended meaning:

The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.” That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

What did the Constitution mean by the term, “natural born Citizen?” To get that answer, we need to examine David Ramsey. In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, “A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen” (1789). It was a very important and influential essay, published the year of the Constitution’s ratification, defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.

In Ramsey’s essay, while not using the phrase “natural born citizen,” he described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright (his term for “natural born Citizen”) after the Founding. He referred to citizenship as a birthright which was a natural right. He told us that birthright—”natural born citizen”—was one where the child was born in the U.S. of citizen parents (note the plural form for parent). That is his definition for “natural born Citizen”. There is little doubt that how he defined birthright citizenship meant the same as “natural born Citizen,” “native,” and “indigenous,” all terms that were then used interchangeably. It was a way that the Framers of the Constitution would prevent the infiltration of a foreign interest into the Presidency. Being a natural born citizen as intended by the Framers of the Constitution is a person who is born in the U.S. to TWO citizen parents. The Framers did not want a person in the highest office in the land with conflicting national allegiances. A U.S. citizen parent and a Cuban citizen parent will cause conflicting national allegiances with their offspring. For instance, Let’s say JFK had a Cuban father and a American mother. What would have happened with the Cuban missile crisis if JFK thought it was OK for Cuba to have Soviet missiles?

In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as Ramsay did. Emer de Vattel, gave the definition in his highly acclaimed and influential, “The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns,” Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers, such as John Jay above, would have defined a “natural born citizen” the same way that Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generation of citizens which the Framers called “natural born Citizens.” It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified.

Cruz is the most conservative candidate up there - so where is your loyalty, Windflier?

Excuse me?

First of all, I don't automatically buy into your assertion that Ted is "the most conservative candidate up there." He has either flip-flopped, or broken faith with conservative principles on a number of things since arriving in Washington - not the least of which are, TPA, the Corker Bill, H1-B visas, and legalization of illegal immigrants.

In addition, he's accepted a large campaign donation from Robert Mercer, who's a known fellow traveler of the Cheap Labor Express. Then there's his failure to properly inform the FEC of the million dollar loan he got from Goldman Sachs, and on top of all of it, he ran for president knowing full well that he probably wouldn't meet the NBC requirements in the Constitution.

Even further, Ted hasn't handled any of these issues in the manner befitting of a future president. He's wiffle-waffled and danced around every question, just like you'd expect any Ivy League lawyer to do.

I'm sorry, but it's all too much for me, which is why I switched my preference to Trump months ago.

back when it was written the average life span was mid 50s... makes sense for the day..