Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question Ted Cruz should ask: Can a foreign-born American be president?
The Los Angeles Times ^ | February 24, 2015 | Doyle McManus

Posted on 02/24/2015 7:07:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

Sen. Ted Cruz is getting close to announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. The Texan is spending almost as much time in Iowa and New Hampshire as he does on Fox News; he's hired a staff and collected a long list of fiercely conservative supporters..

There's at least one hitch: Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, in the Canadian province of Alberta. His mother was a U.S. citizen, born in Delaware; his father, a Cuban refugee working in Canada's oil fields. Thanks to his mother, Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth.

But that doesn't clear up a legal muddle that's as old as the Constitution: Is a U.S. citizen born abroad qualified to serve as president?

I don't agree with Cruz on most issues. He wants to repeal Obamacare, abolish the Internal Revenue Service and pass a constitutional amendment allowing states to outlaw gay marriage, just to take the top of his list. But I still hope he runs — because it's high time we established the right of Canadian-born Americans to serve as president.

Canadian Americans are perhaps our most underappreciated minority. Their contributions to U.S. culture range from hockey to comedy to, well, hockey. It's an impressive list: Wayne Gretzky, William Shatner, Lorne Michaels, Jim Carrey, Pamela Anderson, Alex Trebek. And now Ted Cruz.

At this point I should confess a personal stake: My oldest daughter was born in Toronto. Like Ted Cruz, she inherited U.S. citizenship through one of her parents. But we assured her that she could grow up to be president of the United States. (Proud of her dual citizenship, she says she'd like to serve as prime minister of Canada too.)

Canada is a wonderful country.....

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues
KEYWORDS: 2016birfers; 2016electionbias; article2section1; canada; cruz; dnctalkingpoints; dnctrollmedia; doublestandard; doylemcmanus; gettedcruz; naturalborncitizen; nbc; tedcruz; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 next last
To: Darksheare
“What still where?”

That would be the one in the un-used barracks, without frost on the roof, on the other side of the drill field. Sir.

Which we all really hope nobody notices. Sir.

Which we all stand here and look at every day, Sir.

Except y'all Staff folks.. who are looking at us. Sir.

161 posted on 02/27/2015 1:42:34 PM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare; humblegunner; Col Freeper



162 posted on 02/27/2015 2:24:50 PM PST by shibumi ("Vampire Outlaw of the Milky Way")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Lol, pretty much!


163 posted on 02/27/2015 2:35:33 PM PST by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

Ogod, the image that just conjured up...


164 posted on 02/27/2015 3:03:06 PM PST by Old Sarge (Its the Sixties all over again, but with crappy music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Good on your Eldest.

The military needs good folks.

It will need some "weeding" of the lefties, and other assorted oddballs/noballs/scumballs/etc., sometime in the future.

165 posted on 02/27/2015 3:30:51 PM PST by Col Freeper (FR: A smorgasbord of Conservative Mindfood - dig in and enjoy it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
“Why is there a jet powered still in the back of this hanger?”

“What still where?”

How did you find out about that?

Then I guess you also knew about all the things hidden in the ceiling, behind the asbestos panels, far from the Inspector's eyes.....

166 posted on 02/27/2015 3:34:13 PM PST by Col Freeper (FR: A smorgasbord of Conservative Mindfood - dig in and enjoy it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper

Artillerymen did similar things.
And inspectors were none the wiser.


167 posted on 02/27/2015 3:40:33 PM PST by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: shibumi; Darksheare; humblegunner
At my assignment to a mountaintop in Oregon long ago, the standard test of one of the new Airmen from Tech School was to send them over to Supply with a request for "two fallopian tubes" for the Radar Set.

Since I was ummmm... familiar with the errr... parts being ordered (and said "Say What?), they didn't select me to be the "testee" (they had 35 new Airmen to choose from).

168 posted on 02/27/2015 3:40:36 PM PST by Col Freeper (FR: A smorgasbord of Conservative Mindfood - dig in and enjoy it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper; shibumi; humblegunner

I got sent to get a box of grid squares, some squelch hrease, and bulb fluid from supply.
So I asked supply for some graph paper, the old tube of neosporin, and his lighter fluid.
They parted with everything but the lighter fluid.
Needless to say, they didn’t like my solution.
:-(


169 posted on 02/27/2015 3:47:05 PM PST by Darksheare (Those who support liberal "Republicans" summarily support every action by same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare; Col Freeper; shibumi

That’s disrespectful.

Almost as much so as when someone stole that big honkin’ speaker off the roof of CHQ.

“Attention In The Area” my ass.


170 posted on 02/27/2015 4:06:37 PM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP; skeptoid; HMS Surprise; jagusafr; Trueblackman; tumblindice; Jim Robinson; Fungi; ...

To the editor: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-citizen parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, provided the American parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth.

For birth between Dec. 24, 1952, and Nov. 13, 1986, a period of 10 years — five after the age of 14 — is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Since Cruz entered the United States in possession of a United States passport, I presume his mother met the physical presence requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Stuart Shelby, Santa Monica

The writer is a retired immigration judge.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-0228-saturday-ted-cruz-20150228-story.html


171 posted on 02/27/2015 5:41:54 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This letter shows that Cruz was a citizen at birth.

It also shows that “Obama” was NOT a citizen at birth. (Because he has no birth certificate showing birth on U.S. soil, and his mother had not even lived five years after her fourteenth birthday.) Since “Obama” has never been naturalized, he is not a citizen at this moment.

No one has ever demonstrated conclusively that the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution understood citizenship at birth to be insufficient to satisfy the NBC requirement.

I want the first act of President Cruz to be the arrest of “Obama” and the people who were directly involved in fraudulently placing a non-citizen in the Presidency. I want this to take place BEFORE the beginning of the Inaugural Address.


172 posted on 02/27/2015 6:55:30 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyP
Grade school in the ‘50’s taught us two American citizen parents.

Grade school was incorrect.

Please provide the relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution that clearly and unambiguously define "Natural Born" as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth.

Lacking that, Please provide the relevant sections of U.S. Federal Law that clearly and unambiguously define "Natural Born" as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth.

Lacking that, Please provide the relevant rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court that clearly and unambiguously define "Natural Born" as requiring two U.S. Citizens at birth.

They don't exist.
173 posted on 02/27/2015 6:59:22 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HMS Surprise

I’m open to evidence. I did, temporarily several years ago, believe there was evidence. But I don’t anymore.

So prove it. I.e., prove that Ted Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”


174 posted on 02/27/2015 7:01:27 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

What did the founders want? Loyalty, or... divided loyalty? How could they prevent that? Could they establish a higher standard for just two positions of leadership in our government? Say- the Commander in Chief, and the individual that might be called upon to assume the role of Commander in Chief? Are you Fogbow-ing? 14 years in country, 35 years of age, and born of citizen parents. Dare I say- a natural born citizen? What? How dare they ask for loyalty and ask for these simple requirements. This particular issue has been run through the ringer for over six years here at FR. I don’t care how many court cases of limited relations you reference. I only care about what the founders intended. Did they intend for lobbying? Did they intend for homosexual marriages? Did they intend for gun grabbing and ammo restrictions? Did they intend for transgenders in the military? Such the F U! Take your filthy carcass back to whence you came you sh!t stirrer.


175 posted on 02/27/2015 7:18:26 PM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
What did the founders want? Loyalty, or... divided loyalty? How could they prevent that? Could they establish a higher standard for just two positions of leadership in our government? Say- the Commander in Chief, and the individual that might be called upon to assume the role of Commander in Chief? Are you Fogbow-ing? 14 years in country, 35 years of age, and born of citizen parents. Dare I say- a natural born citizen? What? How dare they ask for loyalty and ask for these simple requirements. This particular issue has been run through the ringer for over six years here at FR. I don’t care how many court cases of limited relations you reference. I only care about what the founders intended. Did they intend for lobbying? Did they intend for homosexual marriages? Did they intend for gun grabbing and ammo restrictions? Did they intend for transgenders in the military? Such the F U! Take your filthy carcass back to whence you came you sh!t stirrer.

We are talking about the constitutional requirements for POTUS, not what you want them to be, not what you think they should be, not what you THINK the founders meant, but the hard and fast constitutional requirements for POTUS.

The Constitutional requirements for POTUS are defined by three different sources, and only those three different sources:

1. The Constitution and its amendments
2. Laws passed by Congress
3. Rulings by SCOTUS


No matter how hard you want "natural-born" to be defined constitutionally as requiring 2 citizen parents at birth, as of now, according to the three sources that define the constitutional meaning of "natural-born", 2 citizen parents at birth is not required.

As such, Senator Ted Cruz is constitutionally speaking, a "natural-born" citizen, he is over 35 years old, and therefore, fully eligible to be POTUS.

Now, if you are truly desirous of having your opinion be the actual constitutional definition of "natural-born", you can do one of three things:

1. Get an amendment to the US Constitution passed that defines it according to your definition.
2. Get a new law through the US Congress and signed by a US President that defines it according to your definition
3. Get SCOTUS to rule that your definition is constitutional.

Without going through any of those 3 processes, your opinion is just that, your opinion and it ain't the constitutional definition of "natural-born" no matter how much you want it to be.
176 posted on 02/27/2015 7:54:01 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

The problem is that there have been nineteen court decisions that have found Obama to be a natural born citizen and zero court decisions that have found he is not a natural born citizen.
Congress has never taken up the issue in hearings.
1) Allen v. Obama (Arizona)
2) Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
3) Fair v. Obama (Maryland)
4) Farrar v. Obama (Georgia)
5) Freeman v. Obama (Illinois)
6) Galasso v. Obama (New Jersey)
7) Jackson v. Obama (Illinois)
8) Jordan v. Obama (Washington)
9) Judd v. Obama (California)
10) Kesler v. Obama (Indiana)
11) Martin v. Obama (Illinois)
12) Paige v. Obama (Vermont)
13) Powell v. Obama (Georgia)
14) Purpura, et. al. v. Obama (New Jersey)
15) Strunk v. N.Y. State Board of Elections (NY)
16) Swensson v. Obama (Georgia)
17) Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia)
18) Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Florida)
19) Welden v. Obama (Georgia)
Here’s one example from a court decision:
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012


177 posted on 02/27/2015 8:04:12 PM PST by Nero Germanicus (PALIN/CRUZ: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

You’re gum flapping is quite extensive... but in the end, no more succinct than anyone else’s. Bravo- you can quote a chapter or verse to rebuke a lay person- putting the poor bloke to shame, can’t you? The founders made it quite simple, in EVERY aspect that they conveyed. Kindly part with me. I part with you.


178 posted on 02/27/2015 8:07:45 PM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
The founders made it quite simple, in EVERY aspect that they conveyed.

Yes they did, and they spelled out everything they needed to be spelled out.

If they felt that having 2 citizen parents at birth was that important to define "natural-born", that's exactly what they would have done.

They didn't.
179 posted on 02/27/2015 8:10:09 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Nero Germanicus
David? David Axelrod? Is that you? I swear the next time I'm at a condo meeting and you ignore me, I'm going to shriek like a little girl!

WHAT did the founders intend for the highest office??? Please, oh please remind me.

180 posted on 02/27/2015 8:11:37 PM PST by freepersup (Patrolling the waters off Free Republic one dhow at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-211 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson