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.
At the time of the writing, no, a father that was not a citizen of the nation at the time of a childs birth disqualified the child from being a Natural Born Citizen.
However, the laws have been changed many times, starting with the immigration act of I believe 1795? Which defined natural born to only require a non citizen parent to have at least been a resident... since then it has been changed many times so that today, anyone running for president that had at least 1 parent as a citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen”.
Now, did congress have the right to redefine the term? Certainly see no legal reason they could not, and since the 1795 law was passed by many of the same folks who were involved in the writing and ratification of the constitution its hard to say they don’t have the authority to do so. However if someone wants to launch a lawsuit and take it all the way to the supreme court they can, but I can’t see them winning it.
What bible verse is that?
It doesn’t mean she’s chained to hell. It just might mean she needs to learn a lesson and this is how God is teaching it.
Issuing the same warning to you, too. Knock it off.
Something maybe like “delivered unto Satan to be taught not to blaspheme”??? :-)
Gospel (Good News) According to Zot 5:49
Peace on earth to men upon whom His favor rests
Confessor Cromwell. Book of Atom. The great division.
I think that is a BIT steelier than your existential cages
Who knows what would take place. If the USSC is feeling liberal (in the illiberal liberal sense) that day, especially if it might mean derailing Cruz (they might want to take their chances with Trump) it might come up with an excuse to rule against Cruz.
It “MIGHT” prove more advantageous to have Cruz still in the Senate, and a President Trump who has converged on a decent deal with America. Sometimes God Himself nudges His children in such a fashion. Shuts door A because door B is where He is going to use them.
I don’t know what started that set of shenanigans, but that was the longest consistent off topic ranting I’ve seen. I had a very good laugh. Thanks for cheering me up.
Just another crater now...with more electrolytes.
We’ll see. She was suspended once before. She;ll be back.
Don’t bet on it, if they ruled that congress has no right to define the meaning of natural born citizen, then the current President would not be one either and all 8 years of his actions would be void....
This is a non starter, though it could be political theater, I can’t see any way you can argue the legislative branch cannot legislate... which is effectively what it exists to do.
Let’s puzzle it through. Chester A. Arthur was in the same position.
Suppose they say such a person can’t be President. This doesn’t invalidate anything that can’t be rolled back, at the least. What would the Court say applies to a defacto anarchic period of America? I think we know what’s coming. IT would declare itself to be the Law. And to vote to accept all of Barack’s proceedings would be a no brainer.
Or, dejure (and other adjustments made as needed)
The willful ignorance of so many on this thread is truly ASTOUNDING!!!
well THAT is a pregnant remark
pregnant with WHAT, I can’t yet say
Well I managed to be part of the main show and part of a sideshow :-)
What got into that lady’s army bonnet, I am still unclear about. But something seemed a bit off about it. It finally dawned on me, all this scripture hurling was about HER and from a “fleshly” level. She might not be that way in her heart of hearts but something got her pulled off kilter. Even Jesus didn’t pepper the devil that way. The devil got an on-point answer and that did it. God gave the Word as a sword not a machine gun... few words do it.
And as I talk about such things, I see lessons God has for me too. I need to yack less, mean more. The yacking is entertaining but probably keeps me here longer than I need to be.
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.