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 ...
Compared to Obama he looks red, white and blue to me.
Next thing you know Elian Gonzoles will be running for president.
Sarah Helene Duggin if you are so smart why are you asking questions? You should be giving answers.
Ted Cruz was born to a fully qualified US citizen working temporarily in Canada. You bet he’s a natural born citizen and more patriotic American than 99% or better of all politicians currently serving or running. He’s fully qualified to run in all respects and I will support him to the hilt if he does.
/johnny
Does it matter?
Or do we accept the notion that the law only applies to conservatives, and commies/progressives/liberal/dimocrats are above the law?
This question is answered an analyzed by many who make conclusive responses one way or the other.
It ultimately depends on which way the wind is blowing.
It is merely a matter of opinion, since the word natural born, though defined in legal treatises at the time of the passing of the Constitution, was not defined in the Constitution.
In today’s world, the art of determining the founders’ intent begins with one’s own opinion, and generally does not deviate from there much.
He may not agree with me in the end, but he's never going to claim you're NOT a good conservative for disagreeing with him as long as you've studied the issue.
I hope that if Cruz runs, he supports him when the time comes.
How’s this for an answer “I don’t care” If the dems can do it so can we! I hope Cruz kicks democrat butt all around Washington.
Schwarzeneer is not. He Is a naturalized citizen.
Cruz is a born citizen.
If your parent is a US citizen, you are born a US citizen.
If someone was born in Hawaii and two days later his parents took him to Afghanistan where he was trained by Al Queda and indoctrinated to believe that he was sired by Allah to destroy America the left would insist that he is still a natural born American citizen eligible to be president. Some on FR would agree with them.
What does it matter? He can do more good by replacing Harry Reid in the Senate.
The President, (other than the current one) proposes,
Congress disposes...
Intelligent conservatives ought to be able to discuss any subject under the sun moon and stars, regardless of how contentious it is. That has always been the way of this forum as long as I've been coming here.
Putting an entire subject off limits for mere discussion isn't exactly an attribute of a free republic, or a free people.
I certainly don't believe that Jim Rob would yank someone's account for simply discussing the subject of NBC, as regards Ted Cruz, though I think there's a strong likelihood that he'd zot a poster if they insisted upon arguing that Ted Cruz is ineligible to hold the office of President.
In the overall sense of this country's near-term future, such arguments are tantamount to treason against the greatest good for our people, and the bedrock foundational principles upon which the nation was conceived and founded.
I get that.
In my view, Ted Cruz exemplifies the sort of citizen the Framers intended to hold the office of President. In his short time in office, he's proven beyond doubt that he embodies the very best of the essential American character. Next to Governor Sarah Palin, I've seen no one better.
If he chooses to run for President in 2016, or joins a ticket with Governor Palin at the top, I'll be his most ardent supporter.
For myself, I've had to set aside the word wrangling and more arcane definitions of citizenship to take a deeper view of what a Ted Cruz presidency would mean for the republic. I've asked myself, 'What would the Framers do?' I believe they'd take the measure of the man and pronounce him eminently fit for office.
It’s too bad the framers did not take an extra paragraph in the Constitution to explain “Natural born citizen”. They had no idea how little future Americans would know, I guess.
See my reply to JRF at post 75.
Please let's not set everyone up for another Palin 2012 disappointment.
The Framers didn't define any of the terms they used in the Constitution. They used language and terms that were well understood by the people of the day, and would have pointed anyone who had trouble understanding it in the direction of a common dictionary.
What would have been genius at the time (as if the Constitution doesn't already qualify for that description) would have been the inclusion of some sort of official addendum, wherein they could have set forth the underlying logic and reasoning for every section of that document.
Such an attachment would have saved the country centuries of argument, court battles, and deviations from the Constitution's precise intent.
/johnny
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.