Ted Cruz must change if he wants to be president

all voices ^ | May 31, 2014 | "Punditty"

[sten]

you’ve been here forever. you know the links, as they were being pushed around here nonstop for months while 0bama was running.

TCruz and MRubio have the same problem as BH0bama

i won’t rehash something as simple as a common definition.

[SoConPubbie]

doesn’t matter who claims he is. no amount of insistence will change the facts.

Please post the relevant passage from the US Constitution that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizen Parents at birth.

Lacking that, please post the relevant US Law passed by congress and signed by a sitting US President that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizen Parents at birth.

Lacking that, please post the relevant US Supreme Court ruling that clearly and unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizen Parents at birth.

You can't and you won't because it does not exist.

Your facts are nothing but your opinion, and your opinion ain't worth much.

[conservative98]

Amen.

[sten]

i went over this for months, posting time and again to people that would never read a single thing posted.

here, let me do your homework for you:

would FOUR(4) supreme court rulings be enough?
—
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

you should also consider WHY they put that specific language in the Constitution. they weren’t secretive about it. it was to insure the person assuming the office would be, at least by birth, American and would not possibly be a foreign leader/king.

pesky facts, i know. but it’d be pretty tough to call yourself a conservative, let alone a patriot, if you were to dismiss the Constitution because it wasn’t politically convenient

[sten]

sorry if i missed the others. please see #24

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/3162584/posts?page=24#24

sorry socon... i’m not posting my opinion, just reciting the facts from the founding document.

your lack of understanding and comprehension isn’t my problem.

[grania]

The reasoning is so bizarre. These conservatives who win tickets to DC do so because they promise to be strong constitutional conservatives when they get there, and not compromise on our principles. Then, when they get there, they say they have to compromise to win. HUH?????

[DoodleDawg]

We called those “Reagan Democrats,” “persuadable,” “lunch-buckets,” or “Archie Bunkers” in the old days.

Probably all gone by now. I'd say that as the Democrats have moved further left then the Reagan Democrats likely switched over to Republicans long ago.

[deport]

At best there are two ends of the specturm that most can agree upon. Once outside of those it
becomes murky as to what the term actually means.

1. A person born in the USA to parents whom are both citizens is a “NBC”....
2. A person born outside the USA to parents who both aren’t citizens isn’t a “NBC”...

[sten]

murky... because FOUR(4) supreme court rulings aren’t enough

ffs

one more time for the slow of reading:
—
a natural born citizen is a citizen naturally... AS THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVES

if your parents were citizens of another country when you were born, you can obtain a passport from that country. therefore, you have alternatives... and CANNOT BE a natural born citizen

[SoConPubbie]

pesky facts, i know. but it’d be pretty tough to call yourself a conservative, let alone a patriot, if you were to dismiss the Constitution because it wasn’t politically convenient

The Minor v. Happersett does nothing to prove your point if you bring in all the language of the ruling that deals with being Natural Born, instead of just a narrow sliver that you try to use to prove your point:

Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

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

Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Nothing in this ruling unambiguously puts to bed the idea that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to be 'Natural Born' only that it can be said without a doubt that those who are born in those circumstances are 'Natural Born'.

Maybe you should do your own homework and read through the rulings in question that you use to try and prove your point.

[SoConPubbie]

Ping to rebuttal to use of incomplete facts to buttress his argument.

[SoConPubbie]

sorry socon... i’m not posting my opinion, just reciting the facts from the founding document.

your lack of understanding and comprehension isn’t my problem.

Baloney.

They are not facts from the founding document but an opinion stated as fact by you and others lacking any constitutional foundation.

BTW,

#2, 'United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)' from your list of 4 US SCOTUS rulings that purport to support unambiguously your OPINION that it takes 2 US Citizen parents at birth to make a child 'Natural Born' also fails the test as it is based on 'Minor v. Happersett' which does nothing to establish your opinion as fact.

[Jane Long]

BTTT!

[deport]

If it’s so clear then why all the confusion and debate? Point to a definitive
definition and you’ve solved the debate problem once and for all.

[SoConPubbie]

Shanks v. Dupont - 28 U.S. 242 (1830)

With regards to this ruling, I have scanned through the ruling paying particular attention to all instances of the word 'Natural' and reading in context the points being made.

I can find NOTHING that would establish unambiguously from a point of law, that it requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to make a child 'Natural Born'.

Since you provided this as proof, it lays to you to prove it from this document.

Please support your contention, and disprove mine, by providing the relevant passages from this ruling that establishes unambiguously that it requires 2 US citizen parents at birth to establish the 'Natural Born' status of a child.

If you cannot, it just further establishes your whole argument as 'Smoke and Mirrors'.

[SoConPubbie]

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

Your final SCOTUS ruling also fails the test.

Once again, there is an oblique reference to Vattel In this ruling that in no way establishes as a point of constitutional legality the need of a child to have 2 US Citizen parents at point of birth to be considered 'Natural Born'.

Once again, you have substituted your opinion as fact.

There is no constitutional, legal definition of 'Natural Born' that requires 2 US Citizen parents at birth to convey the right or property of 'Natural Born' to the child.

If you STILL feel that, in your opinion, I am wrong, please provide the necessary passages for the ruling in question so we can further discuss this issue.

[fwdude]

“Cruz had uplifting words for the party faithful in attendance. ‘I am convinced we are going to retake the United States Senate in 2014,’...”

What worries me is who comprises the “we.”

[2ndDivisionVet]

Oh, and another thing, not to be insulting to anyone here ... but Ted Cruz has forgotten more about constitutional law than all of us combined and if we lived three long lives in the Harvard Law Library, he’d still know more than us. If he thinks he’s eligible, I think he’s eligible.

[sten]

0bama was (supposedly) a professor of Constitutional law... and he also believes himself eligible

both are wrong

four different cases where the definition of NBC was explained by supreme court justices isn’t enough. nothing would be... as you’re all bent on ‘getting your guy’ into the office, regardless what the Constitution says

just stop claiming to be conservative or patriotic as neither would ever trash our country’s founding document for political expediency

[2ndDivisionVet]

Again, show us the case law. You haven't done so so far.

Mr. Obama was a guest lecturer, the lowest rung on the totem pole of academia, he was never anywhere near being a professor of any kind, although, as I understand it, the University of Chicago is now claiming he was one, under pressure from the White House. Senator Cruz, on the other hand, was a law professor, is the reason that President Bush won over Vice President Al Gore in 2000, was the lead attorney on District of Columbia v. Heller and League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, and referring to Cruz's time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant."