Posted on 10/28/2013 7:19:34 AM PDT by Paul46360
"For Cruz, Schwarzenegger, and a number of other potential candidates, the Natural Born Citizenship Clause raises a critical question: Is anyone born outside the United States constitutionally eligible to serve as president?""
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
<...”Dems are so hypocritical that they won’t think twice to attack Ted over his citizenship”...>
And the media will gladly give them that opportunity and push the issue.
Obama sets president. Any foreigner can be PIC
Cruz 2016!
BINGO! Wouldn’t you also love to know why Congress tried to change the meaning of NBC eight (8) times before Obozo ran for POTUS? Yeah, me too.
OK. I don’t know about Trojan horse viruses.
Could I just post the text from it? I have permission from the author, who is a friend. Text can’t have anything in it.
What’s that? Like, a news anchorman;-?
The Supreme Court did already decide how to define Natural-born Citizen in Minor v. Happersett. That definition was affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and the Minor precedent on presidential eligibility was affirmed in Luria v. United States. IOW, 27 Supreme Court justices agreed with Minor that NBC is defined as all children born in the country to citizen parents. Those born outside the country and born to an alien father can only become citizens through the naturalization authority of Congress.
And that edge919, is my understanding too, thus because of those decisions, unfortunately, Ted Cruz can not be considered a “natural born” citizen. He is a citizen, just not natural born.
Yes, Yes, YES!
That horse has left the barn. Although Obama may someday be impeached, his so-called legitimacy as president will never be seriously challenged by any succeeding administration. Therefore, precedent exists for a president with at least one parent who is a foreign national. McCain was also waived in, though he was born outside the country. Cruz should not face any serious opposition if he chooses to run for POTUS.
No, I’m a lexicographer. Also a cruciverbalist.
No one cares about this NBC thing. It’s a non issue.
The issue is who would make the best person to be President and turn this country around, and Ted Cruz has made a very good start there.
This reminds me of the circle of posts relating to McCain being a better candidate than GW.
However, that wasn’t the real target. The real target was the game they played with all of us.
A group would gang up - starting with one person entering the thread and saying something nasty about GW. After we would sufficiently pile on, suddenly another person would chime in and join with the opinion of the first person. That, of course, would bring more and more of us to the thread .. but, as I was reading all the posts, I suddenly discovered that the original two people who supported McCain - had disappeared from the thread. Hmmmmm ..??
That’s when I discovered the GAME. It wasn’t to defend McCain, the goal was to watch all of us go ballistic, while they just sat back and laughed at all our posts supporting GW.
I ended this game by sending private msgs to all the posters, telling them what was going on. Plus, I kept a list of the trouble makers; whenever I would see them on a thread, I would let the other posters know what they were up against .. privately .. and suddenly, the thread was dead.
HOW TO WIN THE GAME: REFUSE TO PLAY!!!
We must understand that Ted Cruz is hated .. because he’s a minority and he’s not grateful to the dems. He’s a self-made man, with the help of a great set of parents. The CATO Institute has investigated and found Cruz to be an American Citizen .. END OF CONVERSATION!!!!!
Yes, I remember that well. We forget these people are ALL politicians and even the best of them will never give us 100% of what we want. We are too eager to let the smallest speck of a fault disqualify good people to serve.
“It makes perfect sense that such people’s first allegiance would be to our country, and to our people.”
It might seem to, but that doesn’t explain the millions of liberals that seek this nation’s demise including the very president seated. However, the founders knew there would be people that sought to take over the government, to enslave, and to abuse it. They even remarked a revolution once a generation might be necessary to secure freedom.
I’m not the expert on statutory law of Congress defining citizenship. There are several here. SoConPubbie is one and there are others.
You two are simply wrong.
Defined by statute does not at all mean that someone is “naturalized”. Defined by statute - unless that statute is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - defines when one is considered a citizen AT THEIR BIRTH. When you are a citizen AT YOUR BIRTH, YOU ARE NOT A NATURALIZED CITIZEN.
Naturalized has a very specific meaning. It means that you must go through a naturalization process under the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to become a citizen because you never were a citizen and can’t be until you are processed to become one. That would be a true case of someone who is not natural born but instead is naturalized. That person can’t legally run for President, according to the Constitution.
You are trying to say that if Congress defined NBC by statute, that is the same as providing naturalization for those who fall under that statute. No, it isn’t. It is defining WHO WAS A CITIZEN AT THEIR BIRTH.
As Jim Rob posted on this thread, and has posted many times before, Ted Cruz falls under a statute that defined natural born as having been born to a U.S. citizen parent (his mother is a U.S. citizen and was only working temporarily in Canada (she was born and raised in Delaware and came back here to live in Houston - still lives there) and does not have to have been born on U.S. soil nor did his father’s status deprive Ted of U.S. citizenship through his mother.
No court ruling has ever overturned the statute that defined Ted Cruz as a U.S. citizen.
And are you not aware that the Constitution ITSELF gave Congress the authority to define citizenship? Well, it does!
To come on here, after all of this has been hashed and rehashed for many months, and settled, and to think you are somehow successfully contradicting what the rest of us have posted about this, is not going to work.
I’m not going to let it go by.
The Framers were wise. They knew we'd eventually reach this point, hence their remark. I'm sure they'd be aghast that we've endured this extent of abuse without revolting.
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.