Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illinois judge agrees to hear lawsuit filed against Ted Cruz stating he should NOT be eligible (tr)
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#ixzz40ah5Vv8N ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: 911truthers; alexjones; birthers; canadian; cruz; nbc; tinfoilhat; uscitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 last
To: BlueDragon
Which just so happen to include YOU if you were born in the United States...

No, it doesn't. I'm not naturalized by either the 14th Amend. or USC 8 Sec 1401. I was born in Texas of parents who were natural born citizens themselves and I'm one as well. My Father's side of the family has been in America since the early 1600's and my Mother's side has been here since the early 1800's.

You stick that pretentious BS sideways.

161 posted on 02/20/2016 9:31:54 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

And neither are those belonging to native American Indian tribes who are born within the U.S., or anyone else -- including yourself and myself also (and pretty much all black people born in the U.S. --DUH!) who were born under that condition (born within the U.S.) that is the very FIRST category/classification of birth that was listed under heading of "naturalization" statute -- which heading has been changed since it initial adoption to read more clearly citizenship and naturalization, those two concepts not being identical.

Your argument here --- that all persons mentioned within the statute are all "naturalized" -- is all wet.

If you were not so stubbornly insistent upon clinging to the fundamental error you have made here, which I have explained now many times, then I wouldn't have to keep coming back in reply.

I'd tell you to cram your stupidity sideways, but on this point, you already have it well-ensconced up the the 'ol stern-tube --- where your head is at.

Come back when you can address the questions presented to you just previously.

Or keep anything else you may have to yourself ---until you do. Seriously.

162 posted on 02/20/2016 10:53:47 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Aliska
I still think Obama's problem was his Indonesian citizenship and failure to register for the draft, social security number, etc.,....

Yes, exactly, I think the same thing. I think we've had an Indonesian citizen in the White House. His cool-in-school Commie Mommy brought him home to Hawaii but went back to Jakarta. (She got her Ph.D. later on and spent the rest of her life in Jakarta, doing social anthropology under her remarried name, which she spelled "Sutoro" -- Stanley Anne Sutoro -- until her death in the 90s, I think.)

Barry was supposed to renaturalize on his return, to nullify his adoptive father's naturalization of him in Jakarta as an Indonesian citizen. But if he'd done that, he'd have had to turn in his Indonesian passport, which he didn't but instead used in college to claim scholarships and student aid, and to travel to Pakistan when travel there was illegal for U.S. nationals.

My family has had some dealings with immigration law, and I'm pretty sure that keeping his foreign passport and using it, and representing himself as a foreign citizen while an adult, pretty much sealed the deal on his mom's trendy-Commie rejection of renaturalization and paid off Bammy's U.S. citizenship.

It would be an "election" of Indonesian citizenship for legal purposes. Bye-bye, eligibility to the Senate and the White House.

163 posted on 02/20/2016 11:20:49 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("If America was a house , the Left would root for the termites." - Greg Gutierrez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
...that is the very FIRST category/classification of birth that was listed under heading of "naturalization" statute -- which heading has been changed since it initial adoption to read more clearly citizenship and naturalization, those two concepts not being identical.

You're so full of BS on this point it isn't funny! USC 8, Chapter 12 has never had any heading other than IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY.

Your "citizenship and naturalization" comes from here...
Volume 12 - Citizenship & Naturalization

Yet what you read therein states this...

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Background
This volume of the USCIS Policy Manual explains the laws and policies that govern United States citizenship and naturalization.

Your dumb ass thinks the heading of a POLICY MANUAL is the heading of the law?

And I'm the one with their head up their ass? I don't think so.

164 posted on 02/21/2016 3:50:20 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You're so full of BS on this point it isn't funny! USC 8, Chapter 12

I wasn't talking about chapter 12.

Your dumb ass thinks the heading of a POLICY MANUAL is the heading of the law?

Uh, I was never arguing that the heading of the policy manual was the law.

You though ---sure were. You haven't dealt with any of the questions.

Goodbye. I'm done dealing with your shit.

165 posted on 02/21/2016 4:43:07 AM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
You haven't dealt with any of the questions.

You expect answers to rhetorical questions? HA

I'm done dealing with your shit.

Good. I'm tired of exposing your BS.

166 posted on 02/21/2016 4:52:15 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
The questions were not "rhetorical" but were to the damned point!

You are truly delusional. You've not "exposed" anything I have said to be in error.

The last time you just claimed you did that --- it was your own bullshit that you'd shoveled onto me, as if you actually believed you're own bullshitting.

You took a side, made assertions based upon a particular reasoning. I saw what that was, having heard it all before.,p> It was where you'd begun to go wrong in your thinking, long before posting that backwardness error as among your own positions -- while cackling like a hyena.

Must I go back a read through your garbage comments in order to quote you "hint-hinting" about chapter titles?

I fought the position you had which was based on reasoning coming from those titles for many comments from on my end of things.

I simply cannot get over how rock hard stupid you are. Is your pride that valuable to you? So valuable you cannot allow yourself to admit you've been mistaken?

You're just trolling now. Go to hell, idiot birther troll.

167 posted on 02/21/2016 5:35:43 AM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
The questions were not "rhetorical" but were to the damned point!

Your questions were to assertions, not points.

You've not "exposed" anything I have said to be in error.

Right. Keep thinking that.

Must I go back a read through your garbage comments in order to quote you "hint-hinting" about chapter titles?
Go right ahead.

So valuable you cannot allow yourself to admit you've been mistaken?
Show me where, in your opinion, I'm mistaken.

Go to hell, idiot birther troll.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Have I somehow upset you?

168 posted on 02/21/2016 6:03:38 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
We'll call this reply exposing your BS!

You haven't dealt with any of the questions.
BS!

Where you born in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Answered at 161. " I was born in Texas of parents who were natural born citizens themselves..."
That means that I gained my citizenship by natural law, not positive law (USC 8) like Cruz, Rubio and Obama did.

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?
A rhetorical question!

169 posted on 02/21/2016 6:14:46 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
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?
Another rhetorical question!
170 posted on 02/21/2016 6:20:46 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Exposing more of your BS...
According to your faulty reasoning, since persons whose conditions of birth who are written about under heading of "Naturalization" are "naturalized citizens" for reason of being being mentioned/listed in that beginning portions of the statute --- then ALL persons born in the United States are somehow "naturalized" for reason of being;
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

Since I know the difference between positive law and natural law you're not accurately portraying my position.

171 posted on 02/21/2016 6:23:20 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
You do know the difference between positive law and natural law, don't you?
172 posted on 02/21/2016 6:27:18 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Show me where, in your opinion, I'm mistaken.

I already did that, over and over and over.

Then you actually attempted to turn it around, trying to make out it be that it was myself who had been arguing principles of law ---from the wording of chapter headings --- when that was where you had been coming from ALL ALONG.

Stick with the thought you expressed that those who would do so have their head up their ass.

I'll not bother to reply to any of the rest of your assembled misrepresentations and confusions.

173 posted on 02/21/2016 2:53:15 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
I already did that, over and over and over.

Well do it one more time then, just to amuse me.

And I take it from your nonresponse that you in fact don't know the difference between positive law and natural law.
No wonder you're so screwed up on this issue!

174 posted on 02/21/2016 2:57:28 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Oh, bullshit. You're just trying to recover your lost pride by throwing out accusations and distracting nonsense, hoping something, anything, will stick, in hopes of distancing yourself from your own past FUBAR positions which you not only now refuse to own up to, but are attempting to portray those positions as if they were mine ---instead of all along had been yours.

What do you expect to gain?

175 posted on 02/21/2016 3:21:47 PM PST by BlueDragon (TheHildbeast is so bad, purty near anybody should beat her. And that's saying something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
What do you expect to gain?

I want to gain an understanding of what you do and don't know.
At this point in time I know that you apparently don't know the difference between positive law and natural law.

You're just trying to recover your lost pride...
I've lost no pride, nor have I gained any.
It is a simple thing to answer the question and you refused to do so.
Is refusing to say whether or not you know the difference between positive law and natural law an instance of pride or saving face on your part?

176 posted on 02/21/2016 3:32:35 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson