Exclusive: Birth Certificate for Ted Cruz’s Mother

Breitbart ^ | 1/8/166 | Joel B. Pollak

[elhombrelibre]

Accept you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/information-technology/decisions-making-strategic-tactical-and-operational-decisions-business-management/10271/

[elhombrelibre]

Oh, and here. I know it best from the military environment. And when could anyone think of trump at a tactical level of anything. LOL.

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~tpilsch/INTA4803TP/Articles/Three%20Levels%20of%20War=CADRE-excerpt.pdf

[PA-RIVER]

If we follow the Cruz NBC definition we defy the purpose of the clause.

I could donate sperm to a woman in Turkey, who would give birth to an NBC. That child could then pass NBC to his children, in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or where ever he chooses.

There was a reason for the clause. Electing Cruz violates the purpose, on its face.

[elhombrelibre]

Yes, the Founding Fathers wrote about that in the Federalist Papers. Have a nice day.

[PA-RIVER]

Violating the constitution is SOP.

But then again, we all remember as kids, our teachers telling us you only need to be born on the planet to become president.

[exit82]

But then again, we all remember as kids, our teachers telling us you only need to be born on the planet to become president.

Yes, but my teacher was a bit spacey. She used the word "galaxy". ;)

[Bringbackthedraft]

Some of the handwriting on that form is quite lovely. .................................. How true, I have a collection of old love letters, too bad my grand children can’t read them, they aren’t taught to write cursive. Duhhhh on them and our education system.

[dynoman]

I could find links about two levels - that is like arguing word meanings. The two level concept is valid.

Trump obliterated Hillary like no one else has. Be objective and honest about it.

That is both strategic and tactical. It’s both forest and trees. It’s 10,000 feet and in the weeds. Not like a dog yapping at one tree thinking it’s the whole forest.

[dynoman]

Did you know that in the US “operational” was rarely used to describe a level of war until after the early 80s? That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist in practice - obviously it was part of the tactical level.

“Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do.” - Savielly Tartakower

[elhombrelibre]

When did he obliterate her, after she cashed his checks?

[elhombrelibre]

Yes, I know because I work at the Strategic level.

[CatherineofAragon]

I’ll tell you exactly what I mean.

You Trump lovers want to dish it out-—swarming Cruz threads, mouthing off your birther stupidity, and trying to smear the only Constitutional conservative in the race-—but you don’t want to take it.

The moment Cruz supporters throw your crap back in your face, you start whining about namecalling.

There are a lot of Cruz supporters who stick to Freepmail instead of diving into the mud with you Trumpsters. But there are those of us who don’t mind it, and you’re not going to shut us up.

Man up.

[Springfield Reformer]

What no law of Congress, nor even an amendment to the Constitution, can ever undo is a natural right. While it is true that the slim set of cases that have dealt with the issue in varying degrees (and in recognition of the difference between dicta and holding), SCOTUS has set a pattern that sufficiently eliminates doubt about the most obvious cases. That is the thrust of Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

For example, no one doubts that a person born in a US state to two parents with valid US citizenship and no other complications qualifies as "natural born citizen." If the matter were completely undetermined, we could litigate the natural birthright of every candidate for this presidential election. That doesn't happen because the matter is in fact fairly well settled.

The problem comes in what some view as gray areas. For example, what about the person born outside the US to two valid US citizens who are not dual citizens at the time of the birth? Again, no one would suggest this a problem because the transference of the natural right from parent to child is not in doubt, despite not being physically present within the country at the time of birth.

Why then aren't all "anchor babies" considered natural born citizens? Because the citizenship conferred to adults or babies by the 14th Amendment is in fact a form of naturalization, not the recognition of a pre-existing right of heredity. The contrast is between law and nature. A status one does not have unless conferred by law is not natural. 

BTW, this turns the whole "Cruz is an anchor baby" argument into nonsense. He does not need "at-birth naturalization," because he already had natural citizenship by virtue of his mother transferring that right to him as an operation of natural law, not as an operation of statutory law.

So what remains? To me, it looks like three main areas, place of birth, dual citizenship, and hereditary transfer.  Place of birth, per se, is a non-issue. The Naturalization Act of 1790, which is also statutory, made it clear that children born to US citizens outside the US were still able to claim status as natural born citizens, although the act traced that right through the father. The later revision to that act removed the "natural born citizen," language, apparently because they wanted to consolidate the citizen status of a broader class of children born to American parents living abroad.

Dual citizenship is also a non-issue, under the right conditions. If a person may inherit by the laws of nature the station and rights of the parent, that would logically include all those rights, including those of both sovereignties under which the child is born. Where that can change is if the child, at a competent age, renounces some of those rights in favor of others. For Cruz, this does not appear to be an issue, as he has renounced his Canadian citizenship, thereby retaining all his rights as a natural born citizen of the US.

What about hereditary transfer? Argue it right or wrong, no version of the modern SCOTUS is going to support male heredity over female heredity, and a good argument can be made that this is right, because it is now well established that every woman has a natural right to transfer by heredity to their offspring.  So Cruz's mother was able to convey that right to Ted Cruz.

So it isn't true that SCOTUS has never dealt with the issue. What is lacking is a definitive holding that directly addresses some of these supposedly gray areas. To me it is a no brainer. Congress cannot legislate away a natural right, no more than the right to life, self-defense, property, and so forth.  SCOTUS and Congress can only recognize a natural right, or fail to do so. The current trend has been to broaden rather than narrow the capacity of citizens to participate in the political process. Ted Cruz has the right to run, and the modern SCOTUS would be loathe to interfere with that right.  I would be very surprised if, assuming anyone can establish standing, the Court would even take up the question, but if it does, the litigation will be attuned to the timeliness of the electoral process, and especially after Bush v Gore, the Court will not want to be seen as interfering with the political process. This is going nowhere.

What is more, Trump has access to the finest legal minds money can buy, and he either knows or should know that the fear, uncertainty, and doubt he is spreading is misguided. I believe he is worrying, rightly, that a failure to win in Iowa will pop the bubble of his supposed "inevitability," and give Cruz a real shot at the nomination, which would be traumatic for Trump, no doubt.  So apparently he's sowing an irrational fear to accomplish a political goal. I have no respect for that.

Peace,

SR

[PA-RIVER]

The truth hurts.

You want to elect a guy who tells you he’s a lover of the constitution, yet he was born a Canadian. That’s a fact.

[PA-RIVER]

The purpose of the clause was to narrow the rights of citizens eligible.

Yes, Cruz is a citizen.
The original draft required born a citizen.

After Madison memo to GW, they changed it to NBC to be more narrow.

The founders were brilliant men who left nothing to chance. They would never invent a new term without defining it. It was defined in law of nations. Cruz and Obama fail the test that our founders put in place. Period.

The is now defunct. We can work on the next clause to debase.

[dynoman]

“When did he obliterate her, after she cashed his checks?”

“Yes, I know because I work at the Strategic level.”

?

[elhombrelibre]

Look. I know you believe that stuff. I know that no evidence will matter to you. Have a nice day.

[PA-RIVER]

I don’t think so.

Closing the presidency to people born with foreign citizenship was a simple concept in 1780. It only took three words lifted from the reference book they were using at independence hall. The book Washington checked out from the NYC library when he became president. The book Franklin put on the table at independence hall when they lifted those three words at Madisons request, and put them in the constitution.

Brilliant men, they were, such a simple phrase. Einstein would be proud.

[elhombrelibre]

Uh huh.