I must respond because of the sad amount on constitutional ignorance being argued with such futility. Please don”t confuse Citizenship with eligibility to be president. Please read Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the requirements to hold office. A president must:
be a natural-born citizen of the United States;[note 1]
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
“Natural born” means born inside the borders of this country. That is why Henry Kissinger could not be president— Arnold Swartznager could not be president and why Ted Cruz cannot be president. It is right there in the constitution. It is so foreign born cannot invade the country and take it over.
I will gladly Amend it to allow Canadian born but until there is an amendment ,we who love the Constitution must read it.
And where is that defined?
is why Henry Kissinger could not be president— Arnold Swartznager could not be president and why Ted Cruz cannot be president.
Unlike Kissinger and Schwartzenegger, both of whom were born in foreign countries of non-citizen parents, Cruz was born in a foreign country with one citizen parent. And under the laws in place at the time that conveyed natural born citizen status upon him.
It is so foreign born cannot invade the country and take it over.
I'll take my chances with Cruz.
I will gladly Amend it to allow Canadian born but until there is an amendment ,we who love the Constitution must read it.
And I might support such an amendment if you can point out where the Constitution defines natural born citizen.
Here is the section of the current U.S. Law that pertains to Senator Cruz’s natural born citizenship status:
8 USC 1401
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...”
All sections of the U.S. Code of Laws function under the Constitution unless and until they are ruled to be unconstitutional.
No court has ever ruled that there is a difference between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen of the United States at birth.”
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/III/I/1401
That is not true. It is not close to being true. It is not true in American history. It is not true now.
It will not be true by continually repeating it. It will not be true if you hold your breath. It will not be true for any reason, at any time.
You signed up for Free Republic just about one year ago. Perhaps you were lurking for a while. Maybe you had a prior handle that you let lapse. In any case, when the issue of Sen. Cruz' birth became an issue, you were on board Free Republic.
Therefore, you know that the law of the United States says that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency. Those born to an eligible US citizen parent while outside the US are citizens at birth. That is the law. By US law, a "citizen at birth" is a "nat(birth)ural born citizen."
Really? It says that in the Constitution?
The term was never specifically defined and the Constitution gave Congress the authority to determine who would or would not be defined as a Citizen at birth.
The only working definition of Natural born citizen is one who, by nature of his birth, is a Citizen. Ted Cruz meets that definition.
That is also the official definition of this forum. If you want to try to poison the well by spreading your "borders" nonsense, then I suspect that your stay here at Free Republic will be a short one.
Ted Cruz is eligible to be President and he is imminently qualified. He is also a better legal scholar than you.