Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Yeah, I didn’t think you were capable of anything but clinging to the fantasy at all costs.
Thanks for confirming that. I’m pretty good at telling about people, you know.
heathen :-))
Given the huge numbers of Americans who've lived here for generations who hate and despise their own country, I see little reason to assume that someone with less ancestral time here will be more antagonistic.
I like hething better. It smacks of some unspecified unclean scumbag appellation. ;)
Goody for you.
Odd how you pick out that single snippet concerning an obscure state election to harangue over while failing to refute or even acknowledge anything concerning the actual subject of the thread.
-----
And don't get me started how you 'evidence' was a publication from 2009 titled "Deliver Us From Evil"....and you couldn't even access enough to see the footnotes to know where the quotes actually came from.
Guess it's another "take your word for it" kinda thing.
I didn't.
At least, I don't think I know what you're talking about.
I didn't pick Ramsay as evidence. Nor would I have picked Ramsay as any significant evidence, because it's clear that none of our early leaders agreed with him on citizenship.
Except for ONE GUY out of THIRTY-SEVEN, who may well have voted for Ramsay just out of sympathy.
Look. Let's approach this as a theoretical. We would like to know what our early leaders understood about citizenship.
Two opinions on citizenship (don't peek as to what they are) come up before our first House of Representatives.
One of those opinions is supported by the Father of the Constitution, and is approved by 35 out of the 36 remaining members of the House.
The other opinion is approved by only 1 person out of 37 members of the House who voted. And it isn't the Father of the Constitution.
Now you tell me: Which opinion represents the understanding of our early leaders regarding citizenship?
Clue: This is an easy question.
It's a question that only has one possible answer, for anyone who is remotely honest.
And don't get me started how you 'evidence' was a publication from 2009 titled "Deliver Us From Evil"....and you couldn't even access enough to see the footnotes to know where the quotes actually came from.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Maybe you can steer me a bit better here?
This post appears to be broken: Many comments are missing from the end.
It never mattered to me whether the Founders said the children born on US soil of non-citizen parents were eligible to the Presidency or not.
What matters to me is that the Constitution is being twisted, and falsehoods and misconceptions are being promoted as truth. What matters to me is that some people are making conservatives look like kooks. What matters to me is that some people are bringing harm to our conservative cause by insisting that potentially decent candidates like Ted Cruz are not eligible to be President, when they are. Because that needlessly limits our options.
Or do you really want another John McCain? Do you really want another Mitt Romney?
I’ve been having the same issue. Try clicking on the navigation links instead (1-50, 51-100 etc). It worked as a work-around for me.
Thanks for dropping in, btw. Your NBC essay has been pinged several times on this and another thread, now.
So everyone should believe you instead of their own lying eyes. Got it.
-----
Let's approach this as a theoretical.
Let's not.
-----
One of those opinions is supported by the Father of the Constitution
Yeah and your source for the quote? Name, House of Representatives and the year.
I'm certain that single sentence are the ONLY words he spoke the entire time.
-----
Which opinion represents the understanding of our early leaders regarding citizenship?
An opinion without context is just a guessing game. I've already told you, I don't play those.
-----
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Maybe you can steer me a bit better here?
Since it's YOUR link that YOU posted as support of YOUR evidence, YOU figure it out.
-----
It's a question that only has one possible answer, for anyone who is remotely honest.
Remotely honest? That's RICH!
Particularly coming from a fraud
I am certain of what it means. I dont need someone to esplain it to me. I understand it completely. Two conditions of NBC , Place Of Birth & Parents -existing citizenship. They are trying to confuse us again.
For the record, the Vice President must meet the same eligibility requirements as the president.
Chester A. Arthur was elected Vice President with a father who was a Northern Irish Citizen of the British Empire. William Arthur did become a naturalized US citizen when his son was fourteen years old.
Chester A. Arthur became president when James Garfield was assassinated.
Talk about clinging to a fantasy. I just went through another thread where you must have posted a hundred thousand words defending your misinterpretation of NBC. Only a paid agent has that sort of unrelenting tenacity and output, when faced with overwhelming opposition, facts, and logic.
I'll say it now - I think you're a plant.
“It never mattered to me whether the Founders said the children born on US soil of non-citizen parents were eligible to the Presidency or not.”
Explain in detail.
I'll second that motion.
All in favor, say "AYE!"
I'll second that motion.
Tell you something else I noticed. On another NBC thread, the poster in question seemed to be going toe to toe with at least a half dozen opponents at once, and was actually attempting to prove their case in a host of comments.
In other comments on that thread, said poster reverted to the behavior and style we've seen on this thread.
I now suspect it's plural - as in plants.
You said: “I’ll say it now - I think you’re a plant”
Interesting Windflier. He shows up on Free Republic on April 28, 2011, the very next day after Obama release his long form birth certificate and made this thread with talking points against peoples arguments about the document being fake. He titled it ‘Weak Arguments That Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate Is Fake’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711660/posts
Weak Arguments That Obama’s Long-Form Birth Certificate Is Fake
Jeff Winston | 4/28/2011 | Jeff Winston
Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:23:48 AM by Jeff Winston
Spin all you like. I'm the person who has presented credible evidence here and asked people to believe not me, but the actual evidence. I think that's pretty clear.
Let's approach this as a theoretical.
Let's not.
Okay. So your response to a suggestion that one go with the opinion of our early leaders, rather than with the opinion of a fringe guy who they said was wrong, is: "I adamantly refuse to accept the opinion of America's early leaders, including the Father of our Constitution, as to what citizenship was about, because I don't want to believe what they said."
That's pretty much what I expected from you at this point.
Yeah and your source for the quote? Name, House of Representatives and the year.
James Madison, Father of the Constitution, House of Representatives in the First Congress, May 1789.
Since it's YOUR link that YOU posted as support of YOUR evidence, YOU figure it out.
Show me which link you refer to, and I'll have a look.
Particularly coming from a fraud
Frauds are those who twist and misrepresent history, not those who present an accurate view of it.
Heh. I love the ad hominem.
Kind of hard to argue with James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, the First Congress, Philip Mazzei, Zephaniah Swift, St. George Tucker, the Marquis de Lafayette, Chancellor James Kent, William Rawle, Justice Joseph Story, and the United States Supreme Court, isn't it?
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.