Posted on 01/15/2016 7:38:46 AM PST by Lockbox
Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz should be disqualified from the race because he isn’t a “natural-born citizen,†a fellow Texan claims in a “birther†challenge filed against the senator in a U.S. court.
I think we all want a fighter and a level playing field!
I agree
So this attorney has filed suit. The courts will never hear the case as plaintiff has NO STANDING. If only these plaintiffs had the ability to rise from their sitting position and Stand Up would they then ‘have standing’? So, DONALD, the ball is in your court if Sen Ted has locked his records (shame on you Sen Ted, that does show no sign of transparency) If TRUMP wants Ted as VP then I say ask him. NIXON went into office with Agnew, who was then deemed unqualified and had to resign. Once in office, Nixon had to appoint another as his VP to replace Agnew. If and when it was found the Cruz was also unqualified. Trump could do the same. That would be Sen. Ted’s loss, but something he could avoid if he, (if not already done so) open his records to study and scrutinize for courts to make their decision. GREAT AMERICANS need a better understanding of NBC - apparently just as much as elected officers need it. Will we at last have a final ruling on this after 200+ years?
:: British common law recognized that children born outside of the British Empire remained subjects ::
^^provided BOTH parents were British subjects at the time of birth^^; it takes 2 to tango.
The US, on the other hand can point to narrowing that simple requirement to being in service to the USA (military or State business)
:: if Sen Ted has locked his records ::
To my knowledge, this is a false statement.
If you can provide proper citation to verify it...please do so. Otherwise I will request that the admin moderator delete all posts continuing this falsehood.
I think you miss the point.
The critical fact here is not the narrow or broad specifics of what constitutes a citizen at birth but, rather, that a citizen at birth is indeed considered a natural born citizen either by jus sanguinis or jus soli.
No one is claiming (that I’m aware) that Cruz wasn’t a citizen at birth via jus soli. The only debate, weak as may be, is that a citizen at birth is not neccessarily considered “natural born”.
The Congress shall have Power To...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.... Article I, Section 8, Clause 4
A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized
either by
treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory,
or by
authority of congress, exercised
either by
declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens,
or by
enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.
I totally agree. The voters now are looking at a candidate that many are saying is not eligible. It is now widely known that Cruz was born in Canada. It is also clear that Cruz will not address the issue in a reasonable manner.
It doesn’t have to go to court, there doesn’t have to be a ruling. People are going to look at this and back away.
I don’t believe it was Trump’s lawyers who said Cruz was eligible. I believe Trump said he had heard that lawyers had said that.
Bears repeating:
“Additionally, the first Congress of the United States passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, just three years after the Constitution was written, which stated that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens. Many members of the inaugural Congress were also authors of the Constitution.”
This precedes your court case by some 100 years and certainly illustrates with clarity the mindset of the framers concerning this very issue..
Well, not that I “missed” the point, it is simply that there is so much “brush in the woods” when we start discussing NBC.
As you can see from my previous posts, I trust in jus sanguine in combination with a tempered jus soli.
Who’s to say?
Notice also that the designation of “Natural born citizen” is defined under the heading of Naturalization (Act).
By your own post:
"born abroad to U.S. citizenS.."
Note the use of the plural in establishing jus sanguine
Agreed, but the bottom line is that any legal challenge in this area will, in all liklihood, go nowhere.
It’s a pretty transparent attempt to muddy the waters. If it’s effective in that respect, we shall see.
Do you want to withraw that? Because you are spreading a lie.
Please pay close attention:
The Naturalization Act of 1790, titled "An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" was repealed in 1795.
The Naturalization Act in force at the time of birth controls.
Well that’s questionable because that leads to the usurper in the W.H. and the Knee-Pad media don’t want to go there, hmmm???
On another thread, I used that very same term; “muddy the waters”. I ended that post with, “Damn, this is fun.” and I think you and I are reading from the same page.
I have never seen a campaign like this in my life time (born in 1958) And, well, damn, this IS fun!
Win or lose, Trump has injected a level of “circus” that the rest of Washington DC has simply shied away from. America is better for this...I have regained my optimism for USA.
This is Alexander Hamilton v. Aaron Burr level of entertainment. We can only be better when patriots try to “out-patriot” the challenger.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.
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.