Seriously, there were times in American history when foreign birth (natural) citizenship required the father to be a citizen, or both, but of course that was not the case at the time of the birth of Ted Cruz abroad.
Posted on 02/16/2016 7:07:28 PM PST by NKP_Vet
US Senator Ted Cruz, from Texas, has been under fire in his bid for the White House due to his Canadian citizenship records which make it quite clear that he does not meet the Constitutional "natural born Citizen" requirement for the Oval Office, despite the opinion letter from his Harvard friends.
Following a total lack of vetting on Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 and 2012, many insist that no one ever enter the Oval Office again without proper vetting, including proof of meeting all Constitutional requirements for office. Obama's massive destruction of our Constitutional Republic has placed the issue of Constitutional eligibility on the front burner for many Americans, and partisanship has nothing to do with it.
In the effort to vet every 2016 presidential candidate, Cruz, who had once stated that both he and Barack Obama were ineligible for the Oval Office, found himself under tight scrutiny from the same people who tried to stop Obama from taking the Oval Office via fraud. Ted placed himself in the crosshairs of constitutionalists who do not care about partisan politics, by seeking an office he is not eligible to seek.
In investigating Cruz eligibility for the Oval Office, his eligibility for the US Senate came into question...
The Constitutional requirements for the US Senate are as follows;
"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
(Excerpt) Read more at northamericanlawcenter.org ...
“All true. And...
Obama- not eligible
Rubio- not eligible
Cruz- no possible way eligible”
I agree!
“Ted Cruz was a citizen, even a natural born citizen, on the instant of his birth.”
When I was in high school, in my llth grade American history class, before this was ever an issue, we were taught that natural born meant both parents were citizens. Why was that taught?
Your statement, from everything presented about Cruz, is certainly true NKP_Vet. Many who wish to see Cruz execute what he has said if elected simply don’t understand that U.S. Code, laws created by congress, cannot be used to interpret or affect an article of the Constitution. Some still believe that the definition for who are natural born citizens was up for grabs since it wasn’t provided in the Constitution. Those are people who, like myself some years ago, probably read the Constitution, but didn’t read asking themselves “what is not in this Constitution?”. What is not in the Constitution are definitions, because as Madison explained, and Chief Justice Waite explained in Minor v.Happersett, the Constitution must be interpreted assuming the language and common law familiar to its framers; otherwise its meanings would change as language changes.
I have not seen a citation in which Cruz clarified that neither he nor Obama are natural born citizens. I don’t doubt it, since Ted’s Con. Law professor, Larry Tribe, who was also Obama’s Con. Law professor, certainly knows the Constitution and is probably an excellent teacher, even if he is honestly not an originalist.
I did read that during Ted’s meetings with Texas lawmakers while he was running for Senator, he was asked by someone, perhaps a Texas State House member or staffer, about who was eligible to the U.S. Presidency. Ted was quoted as saying “Born on our soil to parents who were citizens”. The questioner’s name was withheld, but, according to the source, was perfectly willing to provide his name. I don’t know whether the interview was recorded. But Ted was being truthful, and while a little careless, was correct. He has apparently changed his position today, but his change of mind can’t make him eligible. He is counting upon the ignorance of the electorate, and of the continued effectiveness of Alinsky’s “big lie”.
Regardless, the only open question, one which the media and Republican establishment will likely bury, is whether Ted was eligible to be a Senator. Naturalization laws are changing all the time. Ted may have been naturalized, If not, then he is ineligible for both the presidency and the senate.
Why would the Republican party continue to evade Constitutional laws? One guess is that having colluded with Democrats to permit McCain to run, even where WaPo, NYT, LA Times, and dozens of attorneys and academics made such a thorough case showing McCain’s unfortunate technical ineligibility, having been born in 1936, when Congress didn’t grant sovereignty to the Panama Canal Zone until 1937. Republicans enabled Obama, who never claimed to be a natural born citizen, to run unchallenged. He was in fact challenged, by Georgia congressman Nathan Deal, but the IRS saw to it that Nathan would have to resign, which he did, or face certain bankruptcy. That was the answer to Deal’s open letter to the White House asking for clarification of Obama’s eligibility. Nathan Deal has been Governor of Georgia since resigning from the House. His question was answered by the IRS, controlled by the executive branch which Obama then controlled.
The guess is that Republicans, who support Grover Norquist’s CPAC and American’s for Tax Reform, and is funded in large part by Karl Rove, Grover being partners with his Muslim Brotherhood brother-in-law, and who founded the Islamic Free Market Institute with Abdurahman Alamoudi, until Alamoudi was sentenced to 23 years for funding terrorism, like Saudi money. Grover is but one example, but an importanone. He is married to a Muslim woman who is described as “observant”. An “observant” Muslim cannot marry a “kuffir” - non-muslim. It would be embarrassing to them to Republicans have to admit their complicity in protecting Obama, whose patron as a student was Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal, major donor to Harvard. No other Repbulican dared to challenge Obama’s eligibility, Obama who never claimed to be a natural born citizen.
Republicans, if one or two of Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, or Haley get the nod in the primaries, may think they can keep this seldom examined issue buried because no Republic, except perhaps for Trump, will challenge, knowing the skill with which federal courts can use the principle of standing to avoid discovery.
Ted Cruz is certainly a bright guy. So too is Obama, and neither of them is constitutionally eligible. At least Obama told us that he didn’t believe the Constitution had much relevance beyond its historical value. He wanted to add a bill of “positive rights.” Cruz is flaunting the Constitution by titillating the conservative base, which doesn’t understand Minor v. Happersett, or like, Mark Levin, doesn’t really like Chief Justice John Marshall, who explained natural born citizenship and recommended Vattel in his contribution to “The Venus”, 12 U.S. 253 (1814).
We have no idea what Cruz might really do. That is exactly why enlightenment philosophers, most significantly the author of our first U.S. law book, Vattel’s Law of Nations, cited the natural law that children inherit the allegiances of their parents. That is why John Jay and Washington made the last minute addition to the Constitution in 1787 to require a president to be born to citizens, and born on our soil - a natural born citizen. Cruz was born to an alien, a soldier for Fidel Castro, and born on Canadian soil. His mother may or may not have been a Canadian citizen when he was born, but that is irrelevant. Cruz too should be expected to have inherited “Dreams from His Father”. We can’t know what he thinks which is why we trust the Constitution, and particularly, why we should mistrust someone who intentionally misconstrues its meanings.
Our favorite interpretations of current law notwithstanding, there really is no doubt that by current legal interpretation, Ted Cruz would be declared eligible to run for the presidency.
As I said, it would take a Supreme Court ruling to change the way NBC is currently viewed in law and legislation.
I don’t think they’ll be ruling anytime soon on that particular subject.
You have it exactly backward. The postulation that Cruz is a US citizen is not supported by the facts. There is a Canadian birth certificate. There is no US birth certificate. The facts so far presented show that Ted Cruz is not a US citizen.
“I guess he forgot about the scam he ran on morons about finding the truth about Obama.”
I see you are still supporting the Kenyan.
Bookmarked to save your reply.
I knew this thread would get your goat. :>)
I don’t know what you can really say to someone who thinks the child of a US citizen isn’t even a citizen. I might see someone trying to argue the NBC definition, but to argue that he’s not a citizen at all is off the deep end.
A natural born citizen is one born with exclusive allegiance to the US at birth, no matter where that child is born. In international law, it is called the law of ‘statelessness’. A person can not be born without allegiance to some nation and if the country the child is born in a country that does not recognize as citizens, children born to US citizen parents temporarily residing in that country such as France, then that child for all intents and purposes a natural born US citizen at birth.
“I don’t believe that Ted Cruz did not know that he had Canadian citizenship”
When he went to get his driver’s license at age 16, wonder what documentation he offered as proof of eligibility. It certainly was not a birth certificate from any U.S. state, so that would give him a clue as to his citizenship.
Seriously, there were times in American history when foreign birth (natural) citizenship required the father to be a citizen, or both, but of course that was not the case at the time of the birth of Ted Cruz abroad.
I was born in Germany. I do not have a born in the USA birth certificate... I am NOT a Natural born US citizen.
But this thread is more like the normal FR. Ideas are being exchanged here without the ad hominem and flaming for the most part. I wish we could go back to that more here.
Some threads are red meat click bait to start flame wars, and at first I dreaded how this one would go.
We all have our choices in here, and we will vote that way. But after all that, this is still our forum to exchange ideas (usually with some excellent humor), and to virtually torment our common foe - the Rats.
The child's parents may choose to apply for a U.S. passport for the child at the same time that they apply for a CRBA. Parents may also choose to apply only for a U.S. passport for the child. Like a CRBA, a full validity, unexpired U.S. passport is proof of U.S. citizenship.
Also, note that the CRBA is not the only way to have one's US citizenship acknowledged. One can also have a certificate of Citizenship issued if over 18 years old. This means that NOT having the CRBA or the passport when younger does not terminate one's claim to US citizenship at birth.
Certificate of Citizenship issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)A person born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but who is over the age of 18 (and so not eligible for a CRBA) may wish to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship to document acquisition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1452. Visit USCIS.gov for further information.
90% of the threads on this forum are just like this. Insanity is everywhere. Conservatives are at each other's throats in ways that have never before occurred on this forum. We used to be united under a conservative philosophy and now we are divided over personalities.
I'm sorry I posted to this thread. It was a mistake. I should have known better.
Well, read #74 before you disappear.
Will never happen, the precedent was set by the Republicans in 1880 and now they are hell bent on repeating past injustices and those that have the authority to act are turning a blind eye.
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield ... As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. ... Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government ... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests ... Washington's Farewell Address 1796 - one should read the entire speech http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
I see the chemtrail crowd is up past their bedtime tonight.
A Canadian birth certificate isn't the documentation most natural born citizens have.
Great address.
It demonstrates that ‘party’ was seen by Washington as an evil, and also not really factored into some of their decisions regarding how the constitution would have the country be run.
In my opinion, “Party” totally destroyed the original conception of how to elect a president in a republic.
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.