Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com ^ | 07/21/2013

[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.

[DiogenesLamp]

I appreciate all the data - from both sides.

We have a lot more. We don't bother trotting it out to argue with Jeff because his mental rigidity is unassailable with any weapon as pathetic as the truth.

Will present more evidence upon request.

[MamaTexan]

I’m always glad to see people like yourself posting the information for the lurkers.

Which is sometimes the only reason I jump into these discussions that seem to devolve into (pardon the French) virtual pissin' contests.

It's not like I'm asking someone to just take my word for it, I want people to read and interpret it for themselves. They did write in perfectly understandable language back then.

-----

BTW - Thank you kindly, too!

[1rudeboy]

Will present more evidence upon request.

Requesting.

[DiogenesLamp]

It's impressive. I've learned a lot about rational discussion from the names you are being called........

Infinitely more than you would have learned from reading anything Jeff wrote or quoted.

To Paraphrase Mark Twain, If you don't read on this topic, you are uninformed. If you read Jeff's crap, you are misinformed.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, I prefer to believe the historians quoted in post #321.

Or circus clowns, talking birds, anything which repeats what you wish to believe.

Yaelle, I added some more from my earlier post. All are in agreement that the purpose of the grandfather clause was not what DiogenesLamp adamantly claims it was.

One does not have to rely on my claims at all. One only has to recognize that only an IDIOT could believe someone to be a "natural born citizen" of a nation that did not exist when they were born. Once again, Jeffy baby, George Washington was a "Natural Born Subject" of King George III, and he owed him perpetual allegiance according to the "natural law" of England.

[Jeff Winston]

Disregard anything from Mr. Rogers. He will overwhelm you with nonsensical crap and commentary from all his favorite incorrect legal experts.

Translation: DiogenesLamp can't refute the information posted by Mr Rogers, either.

Anyone who posts facts that DL doesn't like is a "troll" who posts "crap." And of course, you should NEVER read ANYTHING written by anybody that DL claims is a "troll!"

Don't do it!!!

Lol.

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re a man?

Obviously more so than are you. I'm betting your some sort of cabin boy who receives great affection from the captain of your ship. And probably the crew too.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's a nice way of saying, "I can't refute the facts you've posted, so I will make a show of ignoring them, while using insult in an attempt to discredit you and the authorities you posted."

Jeff, you've been refuted Six ways to Sunday. You've been beaten to a bloody pulp so many times I can no longer keep count. You simply ignore facts you don't like, and you make up ones you do. You live in a delusional little world where you are always right, and reason cannot intrude there.

There is no POINT in trying to reason with you or trade evidence. You are intellectually dishonest, and a waste of time for decent people.

[Jeff Winston]

YOU need to quit pretending the grandfather clause MADE someone a citizen...automatically. It was a conscious choice called the Right of Election.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I never said the grandfather clause made anybody a citizen.

You quoted me saying that the Founders' choice makes no difference to me. It doesn't. I would be just as happy if the Founders had said you had to be born on US soil and have two citizen parents to be President.

Unlike you, I would have readily accepted what the Founding Fathers said.

[Pajamajan]

"the timing of these worthless eligibility posts against Cruz, who is leading the fight in the Senate is VERY suspicious."

Yep. there are a bunch of trolls on this thread. Cruz should expect this though. He is a threat to both elitist GOP and Dems. They are both going to come after him.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the end, it will amount to nothing. For a while I thought they might be able to screw up a Cruz candidacy. I don't tend to think so now.

You are an idiot. For the twentieth time, I direct your attention to the case of Aldo Mario Bellei. He shares the EXACT same circumstances of birth as does Ted Cruz, and the Supreme court STRIPPED him of his citizenship.

If you had two functioning brain cells to rub together, you would realize that the name "Bellei" ought to strike terror into any potential candidacy by Cruz. It's Precedent, it applies to Cruz, and it blows your silly argument to smithereens.

I doubt Cruz can persuade enough voters to overlook his eligibility issues, regardless of what you talking ventriloquist dummies prattle on about. People instinctively know that born in a foreign country is pretty much a deal killer for the Presidency.

Why? Because sh*theads like you have been repeating it endlessly for the last five years!

[1rudeboy]

You should probably take your homoerotic fantasies to another forum. And, requesting.

[Jeff Winston]

I will point out three things about the Wong Kim Ark decision.

It does not use the words "Natural born" in the ruling. Ink and paper were not so dear that they could not have added the words if they wanted to. Like the authors of the 14th amendment, those words were INTENTIONALLY omitted.

That's been covered in another post. The core reasoning of a case is binding precedent just as much as the final statement is. This is basic law, which is routinely ignored by DiogenesLamp whenever it suits him.

Ah, but in Minor v. Happersett, he picks out one or two sentences that don't even have to do with the case at hand, and argue that they "prove" his claim.

Completely hypocritical, and a mangling of the law.

2. It makes no mention whatsoever of the War of 1812, the focus of which was very much about the difference between an American citizen and a British Subject. It has been alleged that they intentionally omitted it because it did not support the conclusion to which they had already made up their mind.

So the conclusion is supposedly somehow invalid because the Supreme Court doesn't talk about the War of 1812?

Court cases cite legal precedent. They don't generally talk about such things as wars.

3. The Wong court is the exact same court that ruled "separate but equal" in the Plessy v Ferguson decision a year earlier. This was one of the most infamous decisions in Supreme Court History, and the Judgement of the court was this: Not all "citizens" are created equal. Some are more equal than others.

Note what we don't have here: Any analysis of the Court's reasoning in Wong. The argument is basically, "They got it wrong with Plessy, so they must've gotten it wrong with Wong as well."

Oh. And this is from the exact same guy who has regularly tried to make his case by quoting one of the Justices in the most infamous decision in American history - the infamous Dred Scott case that ruled that Dred Scott was was "property" and not a "person," and that black people were not and could never become US citizens.

[Red Steel]

Before you throw around who are the trolls here, a real bonifide troll is the person who wrote this headline and article for the liberal Dallas News. The liberal-leftist troll named Wayne Slater.

"Canadian-born Ted Cruz says “facts are clear” he’s eligible to be president"

Senator's Cruz' statements does not match the title of this news blog article. Doesn't even come close.

Stater wrote a couple of drivel books about Bush like this one below:

This guy Slater is out to punk you.

[Jeff Winston]

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.

That's because it isn't the opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Anyone can click through to the book, read it, and see that that's the case.

Roberts wrote ABOUT the set of English statutes that the PA Supreme Court had identified as being still in force in the State. He conveniently included a copy of those statutes in his book, creating a reference work where lawyers could look up those statutes.

He also included his own commentary. And I believe a later version of his work included the report by the PA Supreme Court that he based his book on.

The claims is the same thing as saying that just because I wrote a book on the Constitution and gave my opinions in it, whatever opinions I gave are the word of the Framers themselves.

[Jeff Winston]

Subsequent lawyers who were not involved in the process are not primary sources. William Rawle is particularly bad because he was NOT a DELEGATE...

This from the guy who uses as two of his major sources David Ramsay, who wasn't at the Constitutional Convention either, and whose views on citizenship were slapped down 36 to 1 by James Madison, half a dozen other Framers, and our first House.

And Samuel Roberts, who not only wasn't a Constitutional Convention delegate, he didn't even have any known direct connection to any of the major Founders or Framers.

Rawle was a close personal friend of both Washington and Franklin, met with them and other Founders for months in Philadelphia leading up to the Convention, was asked to be US Attorney General by President Washington, was appointed US District Attorney for PA, and was one of our major early legal experts.

[Jeff Winston]

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.

Cruz's view is the view of pretty much everybody in the entire legal world, including all significant conservative Constitutional foundations (Heritage Foundation, National Review, etc.) It is nothing novel.

The novel idea is that it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

That doctrine almost never appeared between 1787 and 2008. On the few occasions when it did, it was slapped down by people who knew better.

[Jeff Winston]

You've been shown to be wrong hundreds of times.

Then it sure is odd how you can't name one.

All you can do is produce a previously-debunked fallacy of some sort.

[Lakeshark]

I’d vote Ted (again) because the guy has ROLLBACK on his mind. And he knows how to do it.

BUMP.

[Jeff Winston]

One does not have to rely on my claims at all. One only has to recognize that only an IDIOT could believe someone to be a "natural born citizen" of a nation that did not exist when they were born.

Okay. So according to you, the famous Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, James Bayard, John Seely Hart, George Bancroft (who founded the US Naval Academy), Henry Flanders, Edward Waterman Townsend, and Father of the Constitution James Madison were all "IDIOTs."

Got it.