Yup, Jeff's on another of his vomit rants.
Posted on 07/21/2013 9:20:29 AM PDT by Ira_Louvin
Sen. Ted Cruz rejected questions Sunday over his eligibility to be president, saying that although he was born in Canada “the facts are clear” that he’s a U.S. citizen. “My mother was born in Wilmington, Delaware. She’s a U.S. citizen, so I’m a U.S. citizen by birth,” Cruz told ABC. “I’m not going to engage in a legal debate.” The Texas senator was born in Calgary, where his mother and father were working in the oil business. His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba in the 1950s to study at the University of Texas and subsequently became a naturalized citizen.
President Obama has been hounded by critics who contend he was born outside the U.S. and, therefore, ineligible to win the White House. Obama was born in Hawaii. But some Democratic critics have taken the same charge against Obama by so-called “birthers” and turned it against Cruz. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on presidential eligibility requirements. But a congressional study concludes that the constitutional requirement that a president be “a natural born citizen” includes those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.
“I can tell you where I was born and who my parents were. And then as a legal matter, others can worry about that. I’m not going to engage,” Cruz said in the interview with “This Week” on ABC.
(Excerpt) Read more at trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ...
I'm there. Jeff keeps pushing a meaning onto words that don't support it and he does so with such flamboyant dishonest he has earned the disgust directed his way.
I simply mock him. It's less trouble, and much more satisfying.
So far, Cruz is very admirable.
He just happens to not be a natural born citizen. There are plenty of ways he can turn the country back to Constiutitonal governance if he wants to.
Yup, Jeff's on another of his vomit rants.
It’s not surprising to see comperable numbers.
Both were Bob Dole clones.
WHY IF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IN AND OF ITSELF is enough did they have to try to pass a non-binding resolution for something McCain ALREADY POSSESSED?
You tell me, genius. I say, politics.
You must be new here. After the first few hundred times we matched citations, it became apparent that it was a waste of time. We realized that it doesn't matter what you show him, he'll just ignore it and keep on spouting his crap.
This is the Kook world according to Jeff: "American Citizenship law is based on BRITISH MONARCHY LAW of SUBJECTUDE!"
Here it is explained succinctly by Sir Michael Foster.
"Sect. 1. With regard to Natural-born Subjects there can be no Doubt. They owe Allegiance to the Crown at all Times and in all Places. This is what We call Natural Allegiance, in Contradistinction to that which is Local. The Duty of Allegiance, whether Natural or Local, is founded in the Relation the Person standeth in to the Crown, and in the Privileges He deriveth from that Relation. Local Allegiance is founded in the Protection a Foreigner enjoyeth for his Person, his Family or Effects during his Residence here; and it Ceaseth whenever He withdraweth with his Family and Effects. Natural Allegiance is founded in the Relation every Man standeth in to the Crown considered as the Head of that Society whereof He is born a Member; and on the peculiar Privileges He deriveth from that Relation, which are with great Propriety called his Birthright. This Birthright nothing but his own Demerit can deprive Him of; it is Indefeasible and perpetual. And consequently the Duty of Allegiance which ariseth out of it, and is inseperably Connected with it, is in Consideration of Law likewise Unalienable and Perpetual.
Yeah, the idiot thinks American laws are based on THAT type of "Natural born" law. That it is a complete contradiction to American Independence is simply beyond his grasp.
But if you really want a citation, how about this one?
Jeff will say that it is NOT the opinion of the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, it is the work of just one obscure no nothing judge from some backwater in rural Pennsylvania.
Jeff is a liar and a fool.
I’m loading all freeper responses on this thread sorted by join date and opinion into excel to see who’s the noob.
So far, it ain’t lookin good for the noobs. Will give results in a bit.
That resolution was for the APPEARANCE of legitimacy.
They knew both McCain and Obama had problems with the NBC. It was subterfuge not politics. It was a TREASONOUS act of UNDERMINING the Natural Born Citizenship clause of the Constitution.
It was also way to take the heat directly off Obama.
The fact that Obama was one of the sponsors shows that it was a conspiracy by both the Democrats and the Republicans.
It was a treasonous act by both parties. Knowing that the Supreme Court wouldn’t do anything about it.
What they couldn’t get passed by true, legal Constitutional Amendments they decided to steal.
Jack-hole.
It’s unconstitutional, illegal, and treasonous.
Oh, stfu, n00b. Did you see my profile page? [snort]
Well said!!
That resolution was for the APPEARANCE of legitimacy.
A legitimacy that they did not have the power to bestow.
I would suggest that the best place for you to look for the correct meaning of "natural citizen" is not a court case over a century after the fact, but in the words and deeds of the Founders.
Those who know what the term mean were those who passed it in Congress, and those who ratified it in the state legislatures.(Here are the names of the men to whom I refer.)
Subsequent lawyers who were not involved in the process are not primary sources. William Rawle is particularly bad because he was NOT a DELEGATE, because he was the Son of a British loyalist,(British Mayor of Philadelphia.) trained in England in explicitly British Law, and motivated by his adoption of the abolitionist agenda (He was President of the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania) to push the British law interpretation of citizenship so as to make a legal case for the emancipation of slaves. (He attempted this before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and failed. This same strategy was successful in Massachusetts though.)
But he wrote the most famous textbook on the Constitution, and thereby mislead thousands of others who followed.
The legitimacy of our laws are not BASED on how they can be twisted to help our political ambitions.
If you would ignore the law because it helps you politically, you might as well put a (D) next to your name.
Funny how these noob birthers weren’t here when we were desperately birthing PRIOR to Nov 08. Back when it mattered.
But birthing matters to them NOW... quite suspect.
That is exactly what has bothered me about the whole situation. He is a well educated, brilliant law student. That he would say this means he is out for political gain and his personal ambition is more important to him than the Constitution which means he is not the constitutional conservative he is represented to be.
After Rubio and all the other RINOs I’ve seen in Florida and nationally, I was watching to see how Cruz would handle this specific situation to determine if he was in fact the real deal or something else. From his action here, it appears he is not real.
Right back atchya!
Rude, imbeciles like you are a dime a dozen.
This is explicitly dishonest, and it is one reason I have absolutely no respect for him. This is just one of many in his little bag of tools for deception.
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.