Posted on 01/16/2016 3:02:27 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz was born in Canada; he is not a "natural born citizen," and he is not eligible to be president.
And this is an issue that isn't going away, contrary to The Sacramento Bee's assertion, ("Trump's 'birther' lunacy, the sequel," Editorials, Jan. 7)
The Constitution is very precise: "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President." The founders knew what they meant.
John Jay, later the first chief justice of the United States, wrote: "the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen." Later, one of the authors of the 14th Amendment, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, wrote: "Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic?"
Congress has passed a statute that says if one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, you are an American citizen, too, no matter where you were born. Cruz's mother was born in Delaware. That makes him a "citizen" by statute, but not a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
If both of Cruz's parents had been American-born, Cruz would have a stronger case. However, his father was born in Cuba.
Every other president and presidential candidate in our history was born either within the United States or one of its possessions. At no time ever was Calgary, Canada, where Cruz was born in 1970, a U.S. possession.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
As to why they are allowed to muck up the debates, I think that is not really a conspiracy, but there is some string pulling to attempt to condition the public to believe that birth abroad is no big deal. Katayl/Clement, nearly all the "simple" articles, the uniformity of misleading by politicians, press, etc. Cruz had to know that a flim-flam was going to be perpetrated. He's just the point man.
I think the PTB resist putting eligibility checks on the states, because that makes it harder to perpetrate the flim-flam.
when she was turning 21 she wrote to both the US and Canada governments and asked what would happen. She got the same answer from both. Her vote would decide it. Note, that she asked. Only her vote would decide it!
Well, if the powers that be wish to limit airtime exposure of the non-establishment candidates, that would be a Jim-dandy way to do it.
And thanks for your insight.
Because 1. That is not enough for some theories of natural born citizens and 2. The substance of the case is determined at trial, not when you file. They should not only file one on trump, they should then keep rescheduling to delay getting to court as long as possible so DJT keeps getting reminded he has an open case every time he tries to act like a case being filed matters for others
A lawsuit was filed... Oh noes... You do know anyone could file the same suit on any candidate... And the results will be the same for all of them... Thrown out.
In your sister’s example, she made inquiries. Some people don’t check, and thus don’t know.
Question is, even if Ted knew he had dual citizenship, how would he have found out he lost his Canadian citizenship by voting in a US election?
I’m in the US, and don’t remember if the voting registration info mentioned anything about it...
Even if (wont happen) they found a judge willing to do that, it has to stand up during the appeal. But hey, I should take your word over someone who has won several cases before the Supreme Court...
You repeatly post that your reading of the phrase "children of citizens" in the above 1790 statute means 2 USC parents are required. But you refuse to respond to my reply debunking that claim. I'll give you another chance:
Those who claim the plural "citizens" excludes children of only 1 citizen parent must also claim that the plural "children" excludes only 1 child of citizen parents!Clearly an unsupportable reading of the statute.
Well this has to be settled.The Supreme Court should settle it once and for all.It’s a distraction and also people are investing money in these candidates.
That is all find and dandy. However the other section states that in order to hold the office of President or Vice President both parents need to be citizens on the United States. Ted’s father was not a citizen.
What on Earth are you talking about?
Article II, clause 2: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector"
The US Federal government has NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in the appointment of Electors by the State Legislatures. NONE.
You forgot to underline the next part. Hahahaha. I have been studying the issue and Cruz is probably OK. However you know darn good and well the dimoKKKRATS are not going to let this thing go.
Political parties are private organizations, they can have 50 primaries or no primaries, the primaries can choose all delegates, some delegates, or no delegates, and the convention is the plenary body that does the nominating, that body makes its own rules on the first day and can nominate anybody.
US generally does not recognize dual citizenship, but still grants US citizenship if by some other operation of law, the person has claim to a second citizenship, as in this case.
Understood, all of that. We were discussing the breadth of candidate filings in states that have some sort of primary activity, that’s all, testing the idea of materially false statments being submitted to justify primary ballot access.
Please Mr. Cbolt, enough of the personal attacks.
Bellini is moot as the issue of the case, as the Cruz’s fulfillment of the residency requirement is not an issue here.
By the way, old law school saw:
“When you have the case law on your side, pound on the law.
When you have the facts of the case on your side, pound on the facts.”
When you have neither the law nor the facts, pound on the table.”
Enough table pounding. As I have in the past, I’m simply ignoring your future posts. Have a good evening.
Natural Born Turtle?
Why law to define:
A good question. Remember, “Natural Born” and “Native Born” are two distinct things.
Natural Born does not mean born in CONUS. I means a citizen naturally at birth. For example, think what would happen if the law required Native Born.
The child born to a US missionary overseas would not be a NBC. A child born prematurely to a tourist overseas would not be a NBC.
It would be very convoluted. Child born to wife of Navy officer born at Navy hospital overseas one condition re: NBC, but if born in a civilian hospital overseas another???
That’s why have a law defining.
My issue is who is best qualified to lead US in this time of our history, which if Hillary is elected, may well be the end of our history.
It's not Hillary and it's not TRump.
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.