Posted on 05/06/2013 7:09:31 AM PDT by Perdogg
Ted Cruz’s address at the annual South Carolina Republican Party dinner Friday helped feed growing speculation that the freshman senator from Texas is eyeing a run for the White House in 2016 — and raised yet another round of questions about his eligibility to serve in the Oval Office.
Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to an American-born mother and Cuban-born father, and was a citizen from birth — but that Canadian factor puts him in the company of other past candidates who have had their eligibility questioned because of the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
He even tried it with John Bingham, and he intentionally truncated his quote so as to completely change it's meaning. Reading Jeff's crap is seconds of your life you won't get back. I've gotten to where I seldom bother anymore.
Another long spew of verbiage that i’m not going to bother reading. All anyone needs to know is this: If Jeff posted it, it’s misleading crap.
You simply repeat a ream of crap that you've collected, and claim Historical people as supporting you by misrepresenting their meaning. You've done it with John Bingham, and you do it constantly with James Madison. You are simply a dishonest proponent of your desire to legitimize the most illegitimate President in History.
You are, in essence, some sort of kook.
Bill Bryan of the fogbow is placing a photo shopped pic to deceive the citizens of Raleigh.
Glasses..added hair.
The man is a fraud just like the president.
http://www.meetup.com/The-Knowledge-Team/
It can also be argued that he wasn't stripped of his natural-born citizen status, he relinquished that citizenship. He knew what was involved in retaining his citizenship. He didn't do it. He lost it through his own actions.
He didn't "relinquish" it. It was ripped off of him kicking and screaming. He took it to the Supreme Court in an effort to retain it.
Look, this is simple. A "natural citizen" could have spent his entire life abroad, and never lost his citizenship for failing to live here for a designated period.
"Natural Citizens" are not subject to residency requirements. "Statutory citizens" are.
You did not answer the question posed to you. I did not introduce a fourth category of citizenship, but you must for your theory to hold water.
What is the reason for the distinction between “citizen” as a requirement for Senator and Representative and “natural born” citizen for President?
Of the three categories of citizen mentioned in the Constitution, any of the three may be a Senator. A non citizen cannot be a Senator. Only a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption can be President. A naturalized citizen or a non citizen cannot be President.
You can't show that I have "misrepresented" John Bingham, James Madison, or anybody else, because I haven't.
Is this what it's come down to? That birthers are free to publicly call the writings of our Founding Fathers and other early legal experts, and our long-standing laws, "horse sh*t" and "crap?"
Jim, can I ask: Why is this being tolerated here at FreeRepublic? I simply don't understand.
Of course is wishful thinking ...... and I am being very careful of what I wish for, by the remote chance it could come true.
No diehard secessionist, American first, but if and when America abandons us, Texas has long been able to maintain that special America attitude, that the liberals are desperate to flush.
I was born abroad to a British citizen, and I am considered a British citizen myself, although I have not at any time permanently resided in that country.
It stops at one generation, though. My children are not British citizens and cannot easily become so unless they reside in the UK for at least three years before turning 18.
Why are you pinging me in your reply for a thread I have not even viewed? If you want to argue with someone, go ahead, but try to keep it between yourselves.
Sorry. Based on a previous thread, I thought you would be interested.
Jeff, not sure why you pinged me. I gave up on your creative use of the founders a long time back. If you really want to win converts to your point of view, you need to find some common ground with your opponents. Instead, if I recall correctly, your nearly every post was decorated with not only quotes of the founders, but implicit or explicit attacks on the intelligence and motivation of people who don’t share your interpretive theories re the text. That’s going to draw fire, very predictably so, and I find it baffling that you should be at all surprised by the cool reception you ate getting.
Anyway, please do not ping me in the future. I have plenty going on and don’t have time for distractions that go nowhere. Where y’all get the time for these endless debates is beyond me. Sigh. Maybe when I retire...
You have my sympathy.
Jeff, thank you for the ping.
It’s a strange and ironic thing that birthers have found themselves in direct opposition to our Founding Fathers, but they certainly have.
On one side, we have the Father of our Constitution. On the other, a Swiss writer who died when we were still subjects of the king. The choice is pretty clear to me.
In Senator Cruz’s case, I can see you are more right than I in the Cable Act’s application and it would seem to clarify Cruz being NBC in the event it were to ever come before a Court.
Short of Constitutional clarity, should not a Court follow Common-law that gives us that NBC is conveyed to those born of a USA citizen, beyond the borders, considering Cruz Mother made certain no dual citizenship by registering him for USA Passport and returning him to reside in USA as proscribed?
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.