Posted on 04/08/2016 5:08:31 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
“In 2 weeks the North American Law Center will release proof that Ted Cruz is a fraud. They have issued his campaign a warning that if Cruz doesn’t tell the truth and step down they will release their proof – the truth that so many refused to believe or listen to.” – Karen Bracken
The North American Law Center issued this stark notice to the Cruz campaign on their latest podcast on April 3 (19:00 mark) –
“We’re talking about American citizens (who) think a guy who’s Canadian-born is eligible to be a U.S. president – without any documentation whatsoever. If Ted continues on – we are going to release the files we have, two weeks from tonight, and we will bury Ted Cruz forever in American politics… If we have to stop this guy from defrauding this nation, then we are going to do that.” – J.B. Williams, N.A.L.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at endingthefed.com ...
Lol yeah because we all know congressman don’t make incorrect statements on the floor.
I’m not a legal expert. When I want a legal opinion I go to legal experts. I’ve read the opinions of numerous and all respectable ones say the same thing. If it were otherwise Trump would have brought a suit. You may not like it but until you get a court to rule otherwise Cruz is eligible and a natural born citizen.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is a superior court. They affirmed the ruling of the trial court that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
Okay, so you know nothing about the topic, got it.
You are correct. I guess the issue is dead in Pennsylvania, but live for now in many more States.
It was wishful thinking on my part that there was a level of court remaining in PA. I just can’t wrap my head around judges who legislate from the bench and think they can make the Constitution mean whatever they say it means. Such judges are a danger to the fabric of America. I grew up thinking that America is a Nation of Laws and its hard to accept that the law doesn’t matter, almost like living in a banana republic.
University of Chicago Law Professor Eric Posner puts the case directly:
“To naturalize an alien is to confer citizenship status but not to somehow convert him to having been born in America; similarly, to confer citizenship by statute to someone born abroad to an American parent is not the same thing as retroactively making that person born in this country—making him natural born—which would be impossible.”
Eric Posner, Ted Cruz Is Not Eligible To Be President, Slate, Feb. 8, 2016.
I know that I know more law then you. I’m also man enough to admit I’m not a legal expert.
I also know that the law says Cruz is a NBC.
Blah blah blah BLAH blah blah blah blah.
Your way of looking at it is not unique to you but it is flawed. Ted Cruz was not a citizen until someone proved to the State Department that he was entitled to be a citizen because he and his citizen parent met the statutory conditions laid out by Congress and applicable at the time of his birth.
Children born abroad to a citizen parent have not always been deemed to be citizens, think of the children born to our soldiers in Vietnam who are not in the main deemed eligible for citizenship. A child with a citizen mother but not a citizen Father would not have been entitled to citizenship early in our countries history because women could not pass on that right. As the citizenship statutes evolved and changed a child might or might not gain citizenship based on the number of years the parent had lived in the US prior to the birth and after a certain age.
If indeed any child with citizen parentage on either side born anywhere in the world became instantly a citizen at birth, not only would it be a disaster but we wouldn’t need 10’s of pages of statutes to decide which children were eligible. The children would still need to prove their connection to the citizen parent and that parent prove their current citizenship.
So it is patently false to suggest that Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country to a non-US father and a possibly still US citizen mother was a citizen at birth without needing to prove his circumstances conformed to the statutes in force at the time of his birth. There needs to be a paper trail.
If his right to citizenship was so proved then he would be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as anyone who gained citizenship under the 14th amendment. Just like any other citizen granted citizenship from the 14th amendment he would not be eligible to run for the offices of the Presidency/Vice Presidency.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.”
Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen” (emphasis supplied).
Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”
John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866
Leaving aside the inaccuracy of your quote, that statement was an opinion. The actual case law does not support that opinion.
Then you know very little of the law indeed because you are making a false assertion.
Agree. It is false to suggest that Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country to a non-US father and a possibly still US citizen mother was a citizen at birth without needing to prove his circumstances conformed to the statutes in force at the time of his birth. There needs to be a paper trail.
>> Some want to believe that one may appear at anytime and any age and demand US citizenship and full rights. It has never been this way.<<<
If his right to citizenship was so proved then he would be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as anyone who gained citizenship under the 14th amendment. Just like any other citizen granted citizenship from the 14th amendment he would not be eligible to run for the offices of the Presidency/Vice Presidency.
>>When a citizen acquires citizenship by statute - he is not a natural born citizen, he is naturalized because he required a law, a piece of paper to make him a citizen other than where he originated.<<
What law school did you attend?
You are aware there are many lawyers on FR did you not?
Reality, Until a federal Court chimes in it is nothing but political posturing.
If Cruz is the Nominee (extremely unlikely) then in October a single liberal federal judge will grant an injunction keeping him off the ballot in November. The USSC is locked at 4-4, so Hillary runs unopposed. The odds of this are 100 percent.
Just because courts didn’t issue opinions the way you want them to doesn’t mean that the rule of law is dead. Consider the possibility that it is you who is wrong in your interpretation of the law.
“And the children of citizens who may be born beyond the sea or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens...”—
The Naturalization Act of 1790.
That is totally consistent with CURRENT U.S. law on who qualifies as a Citizen of the United States At Birth:
8 U.S.C. § 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
And rightfully so.
The Clinton’s were the first to confirm that there was something wrong when Bill commented “If he (BHO) is Constitutionally qualified to run.....
Hillary will not be usurped twice. No way.
Please stop quoting the 1790 Statute. It was repealed 5 years later because it was incorrect as to the natural born aspect. That has been discussed and supported by documentation earlier in this thread as well as many prior threads.
That statute cannot be used to support any argument or contention. The fact that it was specifically repealed actually confirms the assertion that children born abroad to citizen parents are not natural born citizens.
When you include #44, you mean he understood it enough to fake USA citizenship. There is no valid evidence he was ever a citizen until the Senate conferred a US Passport upon him.
Yeah, except you left out something important. The rest of the quote, according to you, says:
...provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.
Parents obviously means a mother and a father.
People can think that NBC means something other than what originally intended. Your choice.
Yes, I even said as much in another post.
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.