No, we need a stupid candidate. One that's dumber than 0dumba.
How about a candidate who was born in Canada and didn't even know that he was a citizen of Canada?
Posted on 08/21/2013 8:40:51 AM PDT by Lakeshark
Over the course of just two days, the Washington Post pounded its readers with 12 "birther" stories aimed at Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Headlines included, "Can Ted Cruz Run for President?", "Canadian Born Ted Cruz Releases Birth Certificate Amid Queries if He's Eligible for Presidential Run," "Ted Cruz: I am Not a Canadian," and "No, Ted Cruz "Birthers" are Not the Same as Obama Birthers":
**snip
Though there is no legal question as to Cruz's eligibility to run for president (Cruz was born an American citizen), the Post has spent the last 48 hours bedeviling the Hispanic senator with articles obviously meant to put him on defense and plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds.
The timing of the Post's assault is also curious. By accident or design, it dovetails perfectly with a widely criticized Daily Beast hit-piece on Cruz that also focuses on and questions Cruz's past and background.
Since being elected to the United States Senate in 2012, Cruz has emerged as one of the most vocal critics of President Obama and his signature healthcare plan, ObamaCare. The Washington Post has endorsed Obama for president, and frequently used its news and editorial pages to defend ObamaCare.
In the past, the Post has also launched crusades to destroy the careers of many Republicans, including US Senate candidate George Allen, presidential candidate Mitt Romney, presidential candidate Rick Perry, and current gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli -- among others. The Post's modus operandi is similar to what Cruz is currently facing: The Post floods the zone with stories critical of the Republican in an effort to undermine their candidacy through character assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Convince me that you ever went to school.
:-)
You can expect all the RINO’s who ignored Obama’s “birther issue” to come out and question Cruz right to b President.
Like Graham, McCain and such
Your characterization is simply a lie, which of course is nothing new for you.
I have for a long time said there's at least some argument to be made that the children born here of foreign parents temporarily in the country (e.g., tourists) are not or at least should not be US citizens.
I've also said that I think LEGALLY speaking, based on precedent and on the historical meaning of "natural born," the argument is a weak one and might well fail.
But from a POLICY point of view? There's a lot of be said for eliminating birth tourism.
And that's why I said Bayard's position wasn't unreasonable.
From a LEGAL point of view, though, he may not be correct.
A proposition can be good policy, but bad law. Is Obamacare bad policy? Undoubtedly. Is it the law of the land? Also undoubtedly.
So to say "Obamacare is not the law" is simply not true.
Unlike birthers, I distinguish what the law is from what I would like it to be.
But I think you understand my position. We've talked about it before.
I think you're just going through the motions now.
I'm not sure there's anyone left on FR who follows these threads who doesn't know that page is from an obscure book by an obscure judge with no known link to any of the Founders; and that he is absolutely contradicted by those who were the genuine leaders and experts in the early United States.
Oh, come on.
Pretty much everyone in America thinks that "natural born citizen" and "born a citizen" pretty much mean the same thing.
Every single instance that I know of - and there are hundreds throughout US history - in which such terms are used, they're used interchangeably.
That being the case, the burden of proof is on YOU to come up with some hard evidence that there is any difference whatsoever.
Which you have utterly and absolutely failed to do.
Why? Because there is no such evidence.
And now you protest too much. Again, why? Because YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR STUPID-@$$ POSITION. So all you can do is throw slurs and try to attack those who don't hold your stupid-@$$ position as "repugnant" and "anti-American."
It's pretty pitiful.
And you do? Where did you get your J.D.?
I've sourced pretty much everything I've posted, at least as far as naming the legal volume or other historical source it came from.
In other words, I've documented everything, my deer, and you or anybody else can look it up for yourself and easily verify for yourself that it's true.
Oh - and incidentally - all of those sources are online.
Let me give you some instruction.
If, for example, if you want to find the quote from James Bayard that says:
“It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’ It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.”
you can go to google books search, which is located at books.google.com.
You can paste the quote into the box, and click “Search Books.”
And you will be able to find the original book that quote came from.
If you want to verify what I said about Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Chancellor James Kent and other distinguished jurists of the early United States approving Bayard’s work, that’s in the Preface to I think any edition after the original 1833 one. So it’s in the 1834 second edition, the 1840 edition, and so forth.
If you want to verify that James Bayard’s father was known as the “High Priest of the Constitution,” or that his grandfather was Richard Bassett, our United States Senator #1 of the First Congress and one of the 39 Delegates who Signed the Constitution, that’s all online too. You just have to do some searching.
I’m sure even you can do it.
Unless, of course, you just want to be a useful little patsy for people who feed you pretty-sounding Constitutional bullsh*t.
Your Bayard quote doesn’t say citzen by birth = natural-born citizen. It qualifies that citizenship by birth occurs to “all the children of citizens.” IOW, someone can’t just be born abroad and be a U.S. citizen. They have to be born to citizen parents the SAME way they had to be born to citizen parents in the U.S. at the time Bayard wrote his observation. There were only two ways to be a citizen at birth and both involved being born to citizen parents. This excludes both Obama and Cruz, as well as Rubio and Jindal. Thanks for helping to prove it. Sorry your quote backfired.
This doesn't help your argument. Kwock Jan Fat was a natural-born citizen under the same criteria defined in Minor v. Happersett:
[the petitioner] claimed that he was 18 years of age, was born at Monterey, California, was the son of Kwock Tuck Lee, then deceased, who was born in America of Chinese parents and had resided at Monterey for many years; that his mother at the time was living at Monterey, and that there were five children in the family, three girls and two boys.
Kwock Jan Fat was born to a father who was a 14th amendment citizen. IOW, Fat was a natural-born citizen because he was born in the country to a citizen father. This is not the case for Obama and not the case for Cruz.
There are no extraneous words in the Constitution. It is a precise legal document, carefully constructed. To claim otherwise is a slur on our Founders' literacy.
So you have NO qualifications, young lady?
Hamilton was at the convention. Hamilton presented his ideas. That is why he was there.Since Hamilton's idea on presidential eligibility was not adopted, we can safely say it was rejected.
John Jay's idea was accepted.
Although Hamilton’s plan was never an official proposal, the founders most certainly did debate the details of the language of the Constitution, no doubt often down to the appropriateness of individual words. And “natural born Citizen” versus Hamilton’s “born Citizen” most certainly was one of those cases. Plain “born Citizen” was specifically rejected in favor of the stronger inborn loyalty check provided by “natural born Citizen” as urged by John Jay1.
To be merely born a citizen was not considered enough of barrier against a possible presidential aspirant with a strong foreign allegiance. For a modern example of how this has been ignored and perverted, just consider the so-called anchor baby, who, though born here, may likely be raised in a foreign land by parents neither of whom have taken an oath of sole (or any) allegiance to our Constitution. It is absurd beyond belief and an insult to the decency and intelligence of those who love the USA of our founding to suggest that such a tenuous quasi-denizen of our society could have been what the founders had in mind when they penned the phrase, “natural born Citizen,” yet many anti-American “progressives” and their low-information, useful idiot brethren would have us believe just that.
1. Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. — John Jay
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.