Posted on 01/11/2016 6:52:52 PM PST by PJBankard
Based on the current knowledge of Ted Cruz's citizenship, would Ted Cruz be considered eligible for the presidency at the time of our Founding Fathers (1788 - 1840).
Facts About Ted Cruz:
1) Mother was U.S. Citizen
2) Father was a foreign Citizen
3) Born in Foreign Country (Canada was a British Colony at the time)
4) Held Dual Citizenship
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
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.
While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter. The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.
Cruz is most likely ineligible if you take a strict constructionist view, which I do. The Natural Born special term, and a specific qualification to be President and I do not believe it should be brushed aside, no matter how attractive the Presidential candidate.
I developed this opinion after considering the case law presented in Boston Law Review article “Natural Born in the U.S.A.: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It” http://scholarship.law.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=scholar
The authors of the journal article want to change the constitution to fix the “unfairness” of this provision. I disagree with the authors because I think in a highly mobile, open borders world, we will need this important qualification more than ever. If we could pass a law to enforce other representatives to also be Natural Born, the country might be in better shape right now. It won’t happen but the thought is intriguing.
If we want to give Cruz a pass just because of the lawlessness of Obama and the Democrats, Obama will continue to destroy the country long after he has died in ways we haven’t even considered.
It has been doing it at an increasing rate. It is a plant. It isn’t going to leave and if you check it’s post history you will discover it is a Bill Clinton supporter.
Stop engaging in a contextual Denial of Service attack by flooding the forum with misused Scripture.
Stop being a purposed troll and flooding the forum intentionally with misused Scripture.
BILL CLINTON supporter with respect to what (even blind squirrels have gotten acorns). I don’t see any of that; I only see bible verses.
You are a purposeful troll who is intentionally flooding the forum with misused Scripture in a Denial of Service attack.
I caught wind of that yesterday. While there seems to be changes in the foundation principles that originally informed this board, surely we have not drifted THAT far off course.
Your comments are the only decent content in this thread, besides my intentionally exposing a Denial of Service troll so that Admin Moderator shuts her down.
If the bible is quoted accurately even if inapplicably, I suggest just let it be, unless the Spirit REALLY moves you to an “it is written” rebuke. Someone else may see it and, not even knowing the context, benefit in their own situation.
With respect to this:
“but the one thing that niggles in the back of my head is that Trump, just before he kicked off, had a substantial conversation with Bill Clinton.â€
I like Clinton, but that conversation didn’t sound right to me either. And I didn’t like Trump’s answer when he was called out on it. It sticks in the back of my mind too.
My question is, who told the media they had that conversation?
We’ll see.
43 posted on Saturday, November 07, 2015 4:03:30 PM by BlackFemaleArmyCaptain (I LOVE JESUS CHRIST because He first loved me!)
To: Norm Lenhart
Yes, I do. I think he was a decent President. I would take him over Obama and his wife any day of the week.
You have a problem with that?
51 posted on Saturday, November 07, 2015 4:09:05 PM by BlackFemaleArmyCaptain (I LOVE JESUS CHRIST because He first loved me!)
What was said about Bill Clinton? Surely he is not running again for president?
Se my response to Hitek above.
Yes. we have.
Oh, THAT kind of supporter.
Well this is like saying you’d choose Thor over Satan.
Get the context... if you keep on being a grace killer, then you can never make the kinds of choices that make sense in a stressed, tight situation.
I understand that, but if a true Dedicated Denial of Service is launched on Free Republic by 1000’s of Bible Scripture verses, that is not good. That is not the purpose of this forum.
Kind of hard to be any kind of a supporter of rapists and faithful to God at the same time.
Or be anything remotely conservative. This is binary. Zero wiggle room.
START ))) If I thought it would make a difference by changing someone's view of Trump, I would spam every single thread with the following opinion that is entirely mine, and yes, I would like to take credit for it.
Voters chose soebarkah, because of the color- black.
Voters are choosing Trump, because of the colors- red, white and blue.
Kinda' DEEP, but SIMPLE. ((( STOP
And you are ...
“A man of wrath stirs up strife, and one given to anger causes much transgression.†(Proverbs 29:22)
And you are ...
“A man of wrath stirs up strife, and one given to anger causes much transgression.” (Proverbs 29:22)
And you are ...
“A man of wrath stirs up strife, and one given to anger causes much transgression.” (Proverbs 29:22)
The 1790 act was repealed and replaced. The 1795 act was repealed and replaced. And so on until we get to today’s law as expressed in Title 8 Section 1401.
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.