As buzz mounts, Ted Cruz’s White House eligibility again questioned

Washingon Times ^

[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.”

[BuckeyeTexan]

I cannot and will not attempt to speak for JR. He does that for himself quite effectively. Heh.

I will share with you what he told me when I posed a similar question to him. I’ll be paraphrasing, of course.

When the eligibility discussion began, Jim decided to let FReepers hash it out amongst themselves rather than take a hardline position on either side of the debate. Both sides make some good points. Both sides draw some ridiculous conclusions. In the end, logic will win out. He left it at that.

In the meantime, those who are apt to jump on every conspiracy bandwagon that passes by are better left to themselves. Nothing anyone says will convince them to reassess their beliefs. Some of them have good intentions but are gullible. Some are so emotionally invested in various theories that they cannot afford to see the folly of their pursuit. Some are trolls intent on portraying birthers as lunatics.

There are FR birthers who listen to reason. They have legitimate questions and are searching for answers. I’ve been down the road you’re on. As I’ve told you before, those who will listen to you have already done so. Make peace with those who want it. Agree to disagree with the rest.

Don’t spin your wheels arguing. When you feel you must make a point, do so with hard facts and then leave it alone. Note that hard facts do not include interpreting legal opinions or the intentions of our Founding Fathers. That is called speculation regardless of how logical it seems.

For example, when I encounter the rumor that it was illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan in 1981, I point them to the travel advisory regarding the issuance of travel visas to Americans by Pakistan upon arrival in Pakistan. Nothing more need be said after that. Likewise when I encounter those who insist that citizenship granted at birth by statute is the equivalent of being a natural-born citizen, I point them to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs manual which explicitly states that the courts have not ruled that the two are equivalent under the Constitution.

Carry on.

[DiogenesLamp]

Horse hockey.

You made a lot of sense til you went over the edge.

It still makes a lot of sense, and I can back up every bit of it by citing historical record. The incidence of people being tried for treason because their allegiance by parentage was different from their allegiance by place of birth is not an academic or hypothetical.

This has actually happened, and people were actually sentenced to death for it. I've ran across examples in my research, i'll see if I can find some to show you.

As for the rest of what I wrote, here is a link you might find interesting.

And another.

[DiogenesLamp]

I knew sanity wouldn’t last for you. Now i’m going back to ignoring anything you write.

[allmendream]

Just as you will ignore the law, the Constitution, history, and the words of our founders.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just as you will ignore the law, the Constitution, history, and the words of our founders.

Just what loonies and idiots have to say about them.

[allmendream]

Yeah, how dare anyone quote the founders, the Constitution, the law, English precedent, or anything else when you are hell bent on ignoring it all because you think you know so much better!

You accuse someone of taking something out of context - without supplying the relevant context - then take ME out of context obviously and blatantly. Despicable when someone else does it you accuse, but apparently A-OK when you do it.

So how is a PCR going to determine the identity and citizenship of someones parents?

You didn't seem to have a problem with automatic citizenship being granted through “manmade” law granting citizenship to the wife of any American citizen - thus making parentage dependent upon the father - but birthright citizenship passing down through the mother (as with Cruz)? How unnatural you seem to find it!

As Madison said - allegiance at birth is sometimes through parentage and sometimes through place. He never said it had to be both. Sucks to be a loon like you! Wallow in your craziness and I hope you don't choke on the hefty serving of crow you have served yourself!

[DiogenesLamp]

Not reading you anymore. I might read short sentences, but when you start rattling on, i’m not going to bother.

[allmendream]

I am ignoring you and your dishonest loony illogical posts, but I will continue to point out how you cannot answer any of the straight questions I have asked you with anything approaching logic or consistency.

[allmendream]

“I can deal with honest disagreement, but intentionally omitting words which clarify the meaning? Not cool, and not honest.” Diogenes Lamp

And then you go on to do exactly that, intentionally omitting words which clarified my meaning.

Diogenes Lamp. Not cool. Not honest.

[longtermmemmory]

This is just a media matters destruction effort.

It is 100% BS.

Beweare the trolls and wolves.

[DiogenesLamp]

Every word you said was quoted in full in my message. Here, take a look.

I can't help it that taking your points one by one made you appear foolish.

[DiogenesLamp]

I admire Jeff for still even arguing with the birthers. The birthers latch on to one con law professor in the country, and then claim everyone else is part of a vast conspiracy...

You only refer to the "Conspiracy" mongers, because those of us who are not suggesting a "conspiracy" cannot be so easily dismissed.

This topic is multifaceted, it has issues ranging from whether or not Barry was actually born in Hawaii, to whether or not this meets the criteria of "natural citizen."

And now we have that same assembly of people who have screamed constantly that place of birth is the only criteria, now claiming that Ted Cruz, born in Canada, ALSO qualifies! (based on Jus Sanguinus, mind you.) They can't even stick with their own standard in their rush to throw open the doors.

Here's a piece of evidence for you, if you chose to look at it.

Hard to argue there wasn't this standard when it is explicitly spelled out for you in an Official law book from the era. Note the specific rejection of English Common law?

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you. I do what I can. We live in a nonsensical world nowadays.

[allmendream]

No, it was truncated to take me out of context. That you quoted the full comment later doesn't mean that you didn't deliberately truncate my comment to take me out of context.

And it is you who looked foolish by doing so. Many false premises start out with a truth - then go on to make unwarranted assumptions based upon that truth. My apologies for giving you partial credit for what you got right.

Your false premise starts out with the idea that natural law exists beyond man made law, this part of the idea is true - but where your premise is demonstrably false is where it goes on to say that if operation of “manmade” law confirms this natural right then suddenly it isn't natural anymore but ‘only’ through the operation of “manmade” law.

You took the first part where I said your premise was false - then truncated it to take me out of context where I said the initial assumption your fallacy was based upon was true. Sorry again for giving you partial credit for the one thing you got right!

DiogenesLamp. Not honest. Not cool.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are right that a naturalized citizen cannot become POTUS. But you don't need to be born on US soil of two citizen parents to be born a US citizen,

This part is true, but misleading. The topic isn't "citizen" but is instead "natural citizen."

and most people who've examined the law and the historical background have concluded that "born a citizen" means the same as "natural born citizen."

This part is also true, and again misleading. It presupposes that the opinion of a quantity of people means the same thing as "true." (Fallacy ad numerum .)

This group "most people" happen to be wrong. The fact that a "born citizen" has been stripped of citizenship because of his inaction proves that a "born citizen" isn't a "natural citizen."

Many people disagree. But in any case, while your teacher was right that he was ineligible, there's gray area between his case and the NBC definition you propose.

And of course if there is a "gray" area, you and your allies want to err on the side of RECKLESSNESS.

[X-spurt]

Nope. Don’t need to hear more.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the meantime, those who are apt to jump on every conspiracy bandwagon that passes by are better left to themselves.

How is this a conspiracy bandwagon?

http://archive.org/stream/digestofselectbr00robe#page/n7/mode/2up (Page 26)

[DiogenesLamp]

All your words are quoted.

[allmendream]

Not in context. Diogeneslamp. Not honest. Not cool.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not in context. Diogeneslamp. Not honest. Not cool.

Hey look people! I have my very own parrot!

Now if I could only get him to repeat something sensible, such as "being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse."