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

Skip to comments.

Pennsylvania judge hears Ted Cruz 'birther' challenge
The Allentown Morning Call ^ | March 10, 2016 | Steve Esack

Posted on 03/10/2016 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-204 next last

1 posted on 03/10/2016 9:12:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
 photo CdPgR5TUYAAaqEt.jpg
2 posted on 03/10/2016 9:14:13 PM PST by rineaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rineaux

Why is the world would we want to nominate someone with this hanging over their head? I know all the arguments, but it is the major reason I cannot support Cruz. We need to win this election, we need someone electable. Ted is not.


3 posted on 03/10/2016 9:21:50 PM PST by w1andsodidwe (TRUMP. YES! Bye Bye Hillary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

People that demand their Constitutional right to bear arms are derided by some as “gun nuts”.

People that demand their Constitutional right to a natural born President are derided by some as “birthers”.

Anyone that derides someone for claiming their God given Constitutional rights is a disgusting, Constitution hating, liberal.


4 posted on 03/10/2016 9:24:50 PM PST by r_barton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

I don’t know if he is or isn’t eligible, but I absolutely guarantee you that the DNC will find a federal judge who agrees it’s a good question and deserves to be determined in a courtroom the day after Cruz would become the nominee. And once they do, chaos will ensue.


5 posted on 03/10/2016 9:24:56 PM PST by bigbob ("Victorious warriors win first and then go to war" Sun Tzu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: r_barton

Now read the article.


6 posted on 03/10/2016 9:25:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (TED CRUZ 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe
Can't explain how Obama won with everything hanging over his head.

Look at Hillary.

Insane.

7 posted on 03/10/2016 9:26:09 PM PST by rineaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

Regardless of any ruling, anybody who thinks Democrats won’t be using Teds Canadian birthplace in the General has poutine for brains


8 posted on 03/10/2016 9:27:19 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

People that demand their Constitutional right to bear arms are derided by some as “gun nuts”.

People that demand their Constitutional right to a natural born President are derided by some as “birthers”.

Anyone that derides someone for claiming their God given Constitutional rights is a disgusting, Constitution hating, liberal.


9 posted on 03/10/2016 9:28:38 PM PST by r_barton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

My nightmare scenario: Cruz vs. Hillary – Hillary indicted, Cruz ineligible – Obama forever


10 posted on 03/10/2016 9:28:58 PM PST by niki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: niki

Great, now you have me looking under my bed and my closet for monsters.


11 posted on 03/10/2016 9:32:43 PM PST by rineaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: niki

Kenyan Sunday Standard, electronic edition, of June 27, 2004


12 posted on 03/10/2016 9:34:11 PM PST by Iron Munro (Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth -- Mike Tyson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: niki

Wouldn’t be Obama, it would be Agent Orange himself, John F’ing Boehner.

Or maybe the new VP. Trump?


13 posted on 03/10/2016 9:40:43 PM PST by boomstick (One of the fingers on the button will be German.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The U.S. is a by blood nation and not a by soil nation like others (Canada). Kings did by soil. Born on their soil, they own you (subject). The founders rejected that and made natural born citizenship a blood thing. It doesn’t matter where you are born, it matters who are your parents. In the early days it was just the blood of the father. Later it could also be the blood of the mother with stipulations on her age, etc. Cruz passes this test. Obama does not. Remember it is not where you are born but who your parents are. Obama’s mother could not pass on her citizenship at the time Obama was born. And since I bet that he was never naturalized, he is not even a citizen. Since this also blows up the whole anchor baby issue, the dems will fight tooth and nail against it.


14 posted on 03/10/2016 9:41:27 PM PST by Revolutionary ("Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rineaux

:) Sorry


15 posted on 03/10/2016 9:46:00 PM PST by niki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This is bull donkey.
Has been decide in multi courts, I don’t give a rip if you like it or not.....Cruz is NBC


16 posted on 03/10/2016 9:49:32 PM PST by svcw (An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe

Ted is both eligible and electable. The arguments against his natural born citizen status are generally well-intended attempts to defend the Constitution, but they are rooted in misunderstanding. If people wouldn’t go all wobbly at the thought of having to fight and win on this, it would be no detraction to him at all. On the merits, he has a great case.

Peace,

SR


17 posted on 03/10/2016 9:50:35 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
All these cases will fail because they all fail to bring to the table the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins SCOTUS ruling that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ means subject to the complete jurisdiction, both political as well as physical. Born “IN”, naturalized “IN”. Not until Cruz returned to the US and remained here for the proper number of years as the law requires, was Cruz's citizenship perfected.

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized, “IN” the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

Elk v. Wilkins (1884)

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which...

“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)...

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized...

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”...

“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

18 posted on 03/10/2016 9:52:41 PM PST by patlin ("Knowledgee chosen to participate inthat is - 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Attorney General Lynch likely has everything lined up, including the judge.


19 posted on 03/10/2016 9:56:09 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I agree. I am for Trump, but this citizenship stuff is just silliness. Haven’t a couple of these lawsuits already flopped?


20 posted on 03/10/2016 9:56:51 PM PST by Penelope Dreadful (And there is Pansies, that's for thoughts. (Ophelia, from Hamlet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-204 next 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