Posted on 02/18/2016 9:58:26 PM PST by TigerClaws
The question of whether or not Ted Cruz can serve as president of the United States is heading to court.
A judge has agreed to hear a lawsuit filed against the presidential hopeful by Illinois voter Lawrence Joyce.
CNN reports that the case will be heard in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago on Friday in response to Joyce's claim that Cruz should not appear on the ballot for next month's Illinois primary because he was born in Canada.
Cruz has stated before that he is an American citizen despite being born in Canada and having a Cuban father because his mother is American.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3454032/Illinois-judge-agrees-hear-lawsuit-filed-against-Ted-Cruz-stating-NOT-eligible-run-president-born-Canada.html#ixzz40ahKXbNs Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It's a combo. One cannot "legitimize" a child born to oneself unless born out of wedlock -- which means that the child was genetically a parent's own issue (child).
Hey, I admit it. I've been awful cruel in hollerin' out, "look, everybody -- it's a unicorn!" but you keep on making those cloppity-clop sounds while prancing around the room -- with the ice cream cone (on the head).
Drip, drip, drip.
You were the one that brought the statute which talked about children born out of wedlock, pointing to that as if it was germane to the rest of the conversation.
When a unicorn-tard brags about being who they are -- who am I to argue? They may just distract themselves and eventually stop pestering me with their own private Idaho performance art.
I still think Obama's problem was his Indonesian citizenship and failure to register for the draft, social security number, etc., the subterfuge/neglect had gone on too long to be a simple omission that could easily be rectified and has brought us to where we are today.
And all the judges in all the land were too chickensh!t to deal with it. Plus the attorney may have been an ok person but came across as a ditz, haven't heard anything about her lately.
Well Judge, maybe Trump should be running on this platform since it is so important to you.
She was jobbed by the Whore Media. They set out to destroy her by invective (formal definition of "to bork"), and without effectual opposition anywhere, they did. Easy peasy. Speaking as a Republican, where were all the high-priced GOP lawyers then, when she needed a hand with the Messiah and his Armies of the Night?
The judge in this case won't be delivering anything anytime really soon, I don't think. I think she said she wants to look at the filings and identify the issues or something.
Judge puts off until March 1. She needs to decide if she even has jurisdiction or must dismiss the complaint.
Better answer.
I simply brought the definition of "child" to the conversation to disprove your assertion which you never even bothered to rebut.
You were the one who then went into a left field diatribe about children born out of wedlock as if it were relevant when it wasn't.
And then you went further into your fantastical voyage.
Sorry about proving you wrong, but your antics have brought us to where we are.
The hearing has been put off until March.
You're an idiot. For this particular subject matter, anyway. (in other subjects, and within your own life, I'll assume you're not so die-hard stupid).
That's what has brought us this far.
What has been brought to light though, and not for the first time on this forum, is that portion of law does plainly enough show that illegitimate children of citizens born abroad ----were not born as citizens thus WOULD require form of naturalization sometime after birth.
You tried to apply that requirement to Cruz, having directed me to the title headings of sub-section of that portion of law in attempt to support the [invalid] assertion that Cruz had to have undergone "naturalization".
This is one of the more painful exchanges I've had around here. There ain't quite a bern-ing stoopidity like "Birther" stoopidity. It's embarrassing.
It was yourself who brought the sub-portion with heading title expressing the concept of "naturalization" be applied to offspring of U.S. citizens born abroad.
In the instance of illegitimate children, that is correct.
Yet not for children born to a U.S. citizen was married at the time, even married to a foreigner.
Yet although the laws are right in front of you, you're still acting an idiot, and now apparently working at fooling yourself into believing that you've not been performing as one.
When or if you come up with anything else from within statutory language that you think actually does stipulate that persons born to U.S. citizens abroad were required to be "naturalized", either at birth, or some time after, OTHER THAN in the instance of the child being illegitimate (or else adopted--which interesting enough, is treated identically to being born out of wedlock, hence born illegitimate) -- send it to somebody else.
You've proven yourself incapable of rationally discussing the matter.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Stop, my sides are hurting from all of your futilely flailing about.
You use it if you need to be naturalized and Ted did, and was, no matter how hard you try to deny it!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And in that act what is addressed first?
Answer:
Stipulations of the conditions & circumstance in relation to a person's birth which do not require naturalization, for as it is stated, the persons under this portion (8 U.S.C. 1401) are citizens at birth.
Here again is the beginning statutory language, a) and b);
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided , That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property
FULL STOP.
According to your faulty reasoning, since persons whose conditions of birth who are written about under heading of "Naturalization" --- then ALL persons born in the United States are somehow "naturalized" for reason of being mentioned/listed in that beginning portion of the statute.
That is precisely the point where you first began your own personal transformation into ice cream cone on the forehead wearing, self-made unicorn-tard.
I'm sorry you cannot see it. Must be because too much of that drip, drip, dripping you talked about earlier --- has been in your eyes all along.
If that not be true, then even yourself, according to the your own reasoning including if born to citizen parents within the confines of the United States ----is also a "naturalized" citizen for reason that you were
Where you born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Yes or no?
Were the children of slaves, "born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and perhaps even more importantly, more enduringly, those persons under that same condition born to FREED SLAVES ---born as citizens of the United States? YES or NO.
Do persons born in the United States to the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren of freed slaves unto this day require naturalization, or are somehow "naturalized at birth" for reason of being allegedly naturalized by statute?
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
OR;
Don't even bother replying to me further.
The portion of the statutory language inclusive of 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a);
was derived directly from the 14th Amendment, which amendment to the Constitution enshrined within that document citizenship rights, at birth, to those who had been born to slaves, and to freed slaves. It could be noted also, that prior to have becoming included as amendment to the Constitution, the statutory language was initial first written and adopted, put into law as statute, prior to becoming part of the 14th Amendment (thus now removed from Congress's reach of further quibbling and attempt to fiddle and adjust statutes on that point of jur soli considerations), but I digress...
I add this p.s. for reason I'm pretty sure you would be confused by my mention of slaves -- yourself thinking there that I'm out in left field or something. A Justice of the Supreme Court would know exactly what I was talking about in this --- and if you were the lawyer arguing against Cruz's citizenship status --- would laugh you out of court at this point, including Justice Scalia, now from beyond the grave ---laughing at birther argument of the sort you have been trotting around with.
Clippity-clop, clippity-clop, around and around in circles go the birther crusaders ---but the ice-cream cone seems to never fall off!
Take your comedy tour on the road. You’ll slowly starve, but that isn’t my problem.
According to your faulty reasoning, since persons whose conditions of birth who are written about under heading of "Naturalization" --- then ALL persons born in the United States are somehow "naturalized" for reason of being mentioned/listed in that beginning portion of the statute.
To more clearly state (I know how easy you get confused--n just trying to help);
Argue this point, birther-tard. Go ahead. Keep making a fool of yourself. It's not that I am entertained, or derive the least enjoyment from the continuation of the exchange here on this point, but that I do want the rest of the forum (if they haven't seen it yet) to see just how idiotic the reliance upon the thinking and argumentative demonstrated in such as your comment #154 truly is.
This is beyond some personal interest aspect, but is upon points of the law -- which you have been horrifically misconstruing.
I can only assume that you picked up this particular strain of idiot virus from some screaming loon of extremist anti-Obama birther, since that's where a lot of this kind of stuff originated from, which sad to say --- came to overshadow and overwhelm what valid and solid complaints there were (and still remain) concerning Obama's birth, life, and documentation in regards to those things.
Which just so happen to include YOU if you were born in the United States...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
All Presidents from Martin Van Buren on were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause is whether a child [singular] born abroad of American parents [plural] is "a natural born citizen" in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute [8 U.S.C. § 1401]. Whatever the term "natural born" means, it no doubt does not include a person who is "naturalized." Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens. Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea,...shall be considered as natural born citizens..." This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens. Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a "case or controversy"-as well as how it might decide it-can only be speculated about.
Media Repression on the Question of What is a "natural born Citizen"?
For your edification.
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.