Ted Cruz endorses Marco Rubio’s re-election

Now if all that sounds good to you then by all means keep supporting Hillary by not supporting Trump.

What brought all that on?

I've already unequivocally stated that I'm supporting Trump.

So you DO believe the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to destroy America, via a horde of Anchor Babies, chain migration, and the destruction of the American culture/exveptionslism. No wonder you back Cruz.

Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen of Canada. So according to you, US citizenship laws have no effect on him.

Oopps, my bad, that post was meant for all the #NeverTrump(ers) on this thread.

It makes no difference what you -- or I -- believe about the 14th Amendment. The inescapable fact is that people born in the USA are considered American citizens.

And, yes, Cruz is a US citizen and fully eligible for the office of the President.

But there' no point inn re-tracing those steps. You'll stubbornly maintain your personal opinion -- even though you birthers can't find a court that shares your mistaken belief.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

Buy 1, Get 1 free - Cruz family style

Yet, despite every effort by birthers to upset his applecart, Cruz was certified to run in every election in which he was challenged.

Look, I don't expect to change your minds. They are forever locked in place -- seemingly impervious to reality. Birthers know more about the subject than any jurist -- they just can't get any dense jurists to see the light. And so forth...

You're free to rant and carry on. I'm free to ignore you.

I post the information only to counter the treasonous Obot propaganda that you so freely disseminate hear at Freerepublic.

I post the information only to counter the treasonous Obot propaganda that you so freely disseminate hear at Freerepublic.

Yet, it hasn't effectively countered a damned thing, has it?

Every challenge to Cruz' eligibility was turned aside by election officials and the courts.

Keep it up. Perhaps, your perspicacity will be rewarded in some alternate universe.

Patrick Murphy is rumored to be the dem running against Rubio.
While Rubio is a LIAR, Murphy is total crappola.
Inflated his resume’. Got his job cause his daddy is Rich.
Backed by big sugar, big cattle and big citrus.
His Stuart office is on the Indian River. It was a toilet 4 years ago when he was 1st elected and it has gotten loads worse since and he has done zero to correct the problem cause it is caused by Big sugar, cattle and citrus polluting.
So while Rubio is total crap, he still is head and shoulders better than this dolt, Patrick Murphy.

You must be a liberal. Liberals care about personal interpretations of the Constitution/Amendments. Conservatives care about Original Intent. You being a liberal would also explain your ignorance of the Original Intent of the 14th Amendment.

Reread what I wrote. I’m not referencing courts; I’m referencing your own words. According to you, it’s as big a “mistake” to call Cruz an American as it is to call Curiel a Mexican. Haha.

If Cruz or Rubio had Trump’s wealth they’d have 10 mistresses & 10,000 illegals in their sweat shops.

Then them and the Jebstate cuckservatives go around saying their Cuban blood means they love freedom.

Then Cruz & Rubio blame Trump’s words for violence in Chicago.

Then they attack Trump for not being a social conservative, opposing freedoms & being racist.

You must be a liberal. Liberals care about personal interpretations of the Constitution/Amendments. Conservatives care about Original Intent.

Original Intent. And Reality.

According to you, it’s as big a “mistake” to call Cruz an American as it is to call Curiel a Mexican.

Only in your mind...

” to label him as “a Mexican” when he is actually a natural-born American. “

lol. Are you really that dense?

The judge identifies as a Mexican. He belongs to four La Raza organizations including one that actively supports illegal aliens. I suppose that you would have been all outraged in WWII when American-born sympathizers with Germany and Japan were called Germans or Japs.

Everyone knows what Trump meant when he referred to the judge as Mexican. Even the race hustlers on the Left know what he meant, they simply are trying to get useful idiots to join them in their race shaming.

Everyone knows what Trump meant when he referred to the judge as Mexican.

Yes, everybody knew what he meant. Problem is, Trump very often has trouble saying what he means.

That's a particularly bad habit for a President.

The reality is that Trump said he’d return the 14th Amendment to its Original Intent for the good of the country. It’s one of the reasons he’s the nominee.

So let’s follow your logic. Curiel was born on the US to two Mexican nationals. So he’s a NBC of the US, correct?

Cruz was born in Canada, to a Cuban and a supposed US citizen [no one knows for certain if she acquired British citizenship during her time in England, but there are definite indications that she did]. According to Canadian law, Cruz is a NBC citizen of Canada.

So far so good?

The judge more than identifies as Mexican. He IS Mexican. Born in the US to two Mexican citizens equals Mexican according to their law. I.e.: Curiel holds dual citizenship.

The reality is that Trump said he’d return the 14th Amendment to its Original Intent for the good of the country.

Good for him. I'm for it. But, as you yourself admit, that is not a Reality today.

And, by any legal measure, Curiel is an American citizen. And so is Cruz. That's Reality, as well. Whether you (or I) like it or not.

By any legal measure, Curiel is also a Mexican. You deal with it.

How did the Dallas Morning News know, with absolute certitude, yet WITHOUT access to Cruz’ immigration file, that Cruz was a NBC of Canada?

Correction: should read, ‘Curiel is also a Mexican citizen.’