Cruz likely eligible to be President

Big Givernment ^ | March 11 | Ken Klukowski

[Fai Mao]

On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.

Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.

Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.

No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.

[notted]

My final thoughts on this subject:

Thank you your contribution, and your civility at least towards me.

I agree that the media distorts the news and the perception of reality, (see Newsbusters for examples). I reluctantly accept the inevitable, this issue may well be moot as you described. But the matter is never closed until the truth is fully examined.

My hope is for full journalistic investigations conducted and reported for all politicians, regardless of political affiliation.

Well I can dream. Good luck.

[Nero Germanicus]

Who is it that gets to decide which of the two categories we are all in?

[MamaTexan]

Who is it that gets to decide which of the two categories we are all in?

Well....since the federal government has decided we can pick our own SEX now, I don't see why they should have any say-so over which type of Citizens we believe ourselves to be.

;-)

[MamaTexan]

then why is he on this grand mission attempting to discredit anyone who says that both parents have to be U.S. citizens for one to become a Article 2 Section 1 natural born Citizen?

Ooo! Ooo! I know!

To obfuscate the truth.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Thanks for the emails Windflier. Could you do me a favor and point me in a direction how to contact a moderator? For some reason, I can’t reply to people emailing me anymore. It say’s:

‘Sorry, your account is too new to use this feature’

I could reply for a while but all of the sudden I can’t.

Thanks.

CCPS

[Nero Germanicus]

Oh Obama the Democrat has been investigated and challenged all right, just not successfully. There have been more than 190 lawsuits adjudicated challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. There were 50 lawsuits challenging Obama’s name being allowed on states’ ballots that were heard in 22 states plus the District of Columbia during the 2012 general election cycle alone.

70 Obama eligibility challenges have been heard at the state or federal appellate levels including state Supreme Courts as well and 20 appeals were submitted to the US Supreme Court on the issue of Obama’s eligibility.

It’s not like the Obama is not a natural born citizen movement has been sitting on its hands doing nothing just because he’s a Democrat. The investigation of the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse continues at this moment.

[DiogenesLamp]

Both my wife and I are US citizens. Both of our children were born overseas when I was stationed in Germany. I find it hard to believe that both are not natural born citizens.

According to Vattel, they are.

His argument makes perfect sense to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is simple. Your side believes in an Expansive Liberal View of citizenship which does nothing to address abuses such as "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism" or Foreign influence in the Executive Branch. (Obama campaigned for Odinga.)

My side believes in a Conservative and restrictive view which would successfully curtail abuses and prevent foreign influence in the Executive branch.

Your side advocates a policy of Foolishness, and my side is advocates a policy of common sense.

In short, there's no evidence that "born a citizen" was rejected in favor of "natural born citizen," so no evidence that they don't mean exactly the same thing (no evidence from the Constitutional Convention, at any rate).

My checking says Hamilton Submitted it to the Convention. It is not plausible to believe they didn't read it, and having read it, did not chose to either accept it or amend it. Hamilton was of sufficient social stature to assure his proposals would be considered.

It is possible that they saw Hamilton's version of Article II to be sufficiently similar as to what they already had written so as to make it not worthy of re-writing to include it.

I'll concede the point.

[Windflier]

Could you do me a favor and point me in a direction how to contact a moderator? For some reason, I can’t reply to people emailing me anymore. It say’s: ‘Sorry, your account is too new to use this feature’

It's been a long time since I was new here, but as I recall, there's a probationary period, during which your posting privileges are somewhat curtailed. I forget, but I'm sure it doesn't last that long.

As for contacting a moderator, you could find any thread related to forum business and pose your question to the Admin Moderator. Remember to delete the name of whatever poster is in the 'To' field, and insert Admin Moderator there. That ought'a do it.

[Windflier]

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:42:31 PM · 1,314 of 1,484 Jeff Winston to Cold Case Posse Supporter

“I frankly don’t care one way or the other. It makes no difference at all to me.”

If Jeff can't see the underlying reasoning behind the Jus Soli + Jus Sanguinis = NBC interpretation, and WHY the Framers would have insisted upon that high standard for occupancy of the US Presidency, then there's little point in engaging him on the topic.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

This is simple. Your side believes in an Expansive Liberal View of citizenship which does nothing to address abuses such as "Anchor Babies" and "Birth Tourism" or Foreign influence in the Executive Branch.

So the question is supposed to be resolved on the basis of results? We should decide what the Framers meant based on what loopholes others may have discovered? It's funny to me that the side arguing that we should interpret the Constitution in whatever way is required to get the results we want claims to be the "conservative" side, while the side arguing that we should accept what the Framers said regardless of how it might be abused is denigrated as the "liberal" side.

The Framers may well have been horrified that a man of Barack Obama's or Ted Cruz's parentage could become president. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't prove they forbade it. They'd probably have been horrified that a man of Mitt Romney's or Eric Cantor's religion could become president, too, but they didn't forbid that either.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

Ok thanks.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

I agree. He has a nefarious motive to do what he is doing.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Welcome to FR.

"Yet our country's founders required more than just being born a mere citizen, for the Constitution does not state that one must simply be a "born citizen," but specifically states that one must be a natural born Citizen."

Recommend going back and reading comment #107 and in particular the section on Hamilton's proposal. It's about trying to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, presumed undivided loyalties in the person entrusted with the awesome power associated with the Executive.

[Jeff Winston]

If Jeff can't see the underlying reasoning behind the Jus Soli + Jus Sanguinis = NBC interpretation, and WHY the Framers would have insisted upon that high standard for occupancy of the US Presidency, then there's little point in engaging him on the topic.

I can see the underlying reasoning. Believe me, I have no problem either seeing it, or understanding it.

I don't know whether you're capable of reading and really paying attention to what I'm about to say, and admitting that it's correct. But if you can, you will learn a good deal.

It's just wrong, that's all. It's historically wrong. It's legally wrong. It is simply incorrect, untrue, not in accordance with either history or law.

And it's not an ambiguous situation. There's plenty of evidence, some of which I've presented. And I've looked at pretty much all of the "evidence" presented by birthers such as DiogenesLamp.

I didn't go into this with my mind made up one way or the other. I didn't go into this CARING one way or the other. I simply sifted through the evidence to see which made sense and which didn't.

The evidence that it NEVER took citizen parents for any person born on US soil to be a natural born citizen is solid. The "evidence" that it supposedly did is horse manure.

Here's where birthers went wrong. They started out not knowing anything about the intentions of our Founding Fathers.

So what did they do? Did they go and try and find out what those intentions were, by saying, "Hey, I don't know what the Founding Fathers intended. Let's go find out?"

No, that's not what they did. Instead, they sat down and they said:

Natural born citizen. Hmmm. That must come from natural law (an initial conclusion that turns out to be correct). Well, natural law must mean no law made by man (still pretty much correct, but starting, just barely, to wander from the truth). So that means the status of "natural born citizen" can't possibly be a status that is ever assigned to anybody by a legislative body (now we're getting into the historically and legally doubtful).

Hmmm. Our Founding Fathers wanted to protect us from foreign influence (largely correct, but missing quite a few nuances of what they were trying to achieve). So they must have wanted to ensure that anyone elected President could have no foreign influence at all (completely INcorrect, as shown by the fact that they only specified the President had to spend 14 years of his entire life in the United States, and as shown by the fact that 3 or our first 4 Presidents were also citizens of France while they were serving as US President). Hmmmm. Well, that means that the Founding Fathers would have wanted the "highest possible form of allegiance" with no possibility of any foreign influence. Therefore, "natural born citizen" means a person born on US soil with both parents US citizens.

So then they went out looking for evidence to support that conclusion, and ever since then, they have treated two bodies of evidence in a completely unequal fashion.

Any item of evidence that could POSSIBLY be taken, even if twisted or misinterpreted, to support their claim, they have latched onto and claimed as "proof" of the idea.

And any item of evidence that contradicts their claim, they have ignored, or quite deliberately set out to find a way to dismiss.

That's not what they should have done.

What they SHOULD have done is go out and FIND OUT what the Founding Fathers and early experts and every authority throughout history has said, analyze each bit carefully and impartially to see whether it supports one idea or the other, identify which bits are solid and which fall apart, and build their idea from their of what "natural born citizen" means.

If they had done that, then they would have ended up the exact same place that I and virtually every legitimate legal and historical authority in history has ended up at.

They should NEVER have asked the question, "What would the Founders have wanted?" That is a question that is answered by imagination, and the result, like as not, is fantasy.

Instead, they should have asked the question, "What DID the Founders want?"

That is a question that is answered by impartial research, and the result is an accurate understanding of history and law.

[Jeff Winston]

Good luck to you also.

I’m not having any difficulty being civil to you. You seem like a civil and decent person.

I do eventually run into a problem being civil to people who repeatedly attempt to brand me a troll, make false accusations against me, adamantly push complete nonsense that they will never retract even though its outright falsehood has been clearly shown, and so forth.

Unfortunately that describes a number of those in the “birther” camp.

You, on the other hand, do seem like a civil person. As I say, good luck to you also.

You probably want to leave the issue behind. Before you go, you might be interested in my latest post on where and how I feel birthers went wrong.

I’m not trying to convince you. And if you’re not interested at this point, feel free not to read it. But I’ve been thinking about this the last day or two and just got around to putting it down into a post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/2996621/posts?page=155#155

Again, good luck to you!

[Windflier]

It's just wrong, that's all. It's historically wrong. It's legally wrong. It is simply incorrect, untrue, not in accordance with either history or law.

There it is. Prima Facia evidence that you simply cannot construct a logical, reasoned case for your position.

Deny - invalidate - ridicule - object - condemn - reject - pontificate - slander - ignore - belittle - misdirect - befuddle - indict - speculate - evade.....

ANYTHING, except a well reasoned offering of your own personal analysis of the subject at hand.

Sit down, Jeff. You've proved yourself incapable of producing anything resembling a convincing argument in favor of your position.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

“I frankly don’t care one way or the other. It makes no difference at all to me.”

[Jeff Winston]

DL, I'm trying to catch up on your dreck, but you put it out in such volumes, and my time is somewhat limited, so it's difficult.

This bit of classic idiocy, however, needs to be addressed. Once again, it is an indication of the willingness of birthers to try to claim anything, anything at all, supports their idea.

And here Jeff shows his ignorance again. Dr. David Ramsey was not a sore loser. He was simply against Pro-Slavery Smith winning the seat. Anti-Slavery Ramsey came in third in the contest in South Carolina, and had he convinced the House of Representatives to eject Smith, The person who would have taken the seat would have been Commodore Alexander Gillon. Securing the seat for Alexander Gillion is not in the self Interest of Dr. Ramsey, it is a very good example of a selfless act.

So. Your claim is that David Ramsay really wasn't a sore loser. He was doing the world a great and noble favor by selflessly pushing his ineligibility nonsense, so that Commodore Alexander Gillon, a far, far better man than the pro-slavery Smith, could be installed into the House of Representatives instead of that rascally rascal Smith.

Hmm. Would this be the same Alexander Gillon of Orangeburg County, South Carolina who owned 106 slaves?

Might this be the same Alexander Gillon who seems first to have supported a ban on the further importation of slaves, on the grounds that it would cause "negroes" to "rise in value," and allow debtors with slaves to sell enough of them to get out of debt... but who the very NEXT year LED THE ATTEMPT TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION ON IMPORTING SLAVES?

By the way, the same Alexander Gillon left to his wife, under certain conditions, "all my Negroes thereon or now with me, or in Charleston, or absent from me in this State, and all and Singular my Negroes to the Northward formerly under the Management of Philip Van Horn near Bound Brook in the Jerseys, with the future issue and increase of all my aforesaid Negroes as are females.

Oh, and did you know that the same Alexander Gillon directed that if his wife didn't qualify, all of his "Negroes" should go to his daughter, and further specified: "I hereby direct that the annual Profits of the said Premises... be appropriated first to the decent maintenance, cloathing and Educatlon of my said Daughter, and that the surplus be made an encreasing fund for the Purchasing of Negroes and improving the Premises for the benefit of my said Daughter.

So Gillon specified in his will that the profits of his estate should be used to purchase MORE "NEGROES!"

Yeah, Alexander Gillon was a real anti-slavery champion and humanitarian.

The whole thing shows just how despicable you are, and how you're not the slightest bit interested in promoting the truth based on the evidence.

I pegged David Ramsay as a sore loser, and that's exactly what he was. And I have you pegged as someone for whom the actual TRUTH means nothing. It is all about pushing your FALSE THEORY, no matter what the FACTS are.

And that's exactly what you are, too.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

"They did set it higher. The President is the only official that must be born a citizen as opposed to naturalized."

What a relief! Except. . .