Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN: Why Ted Cruz Is Eligible To Be pPresident
CNN ^ | January 14, 2016

Posted on 01/27/2016 2:14:24 PM PST by Yosemitest


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: canadian; cruz; ineligible; naturalborncitizen; nbc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: 2pets
-- whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301 --

You are citing the wrong section. I'll go find the right cite for you.

61 posted on 01/28/2016 6:53:53 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 2pets
-- whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301 --

Hah. You were the incompetent one before!

01/20/2016 4:56:14 AM PST . 66 of 66

1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7)
[you'll find the text crossing from page 235 to 236]

62 posted on 01/28/2016 7:00:40 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

He talks again about Bush v Gore claiming that it was wrong. As I remember the Florida Supreme Court told the election officials that the election laws already on the books had to be followed on the recounting of the votes. The election laws were not changed to elect Bush they were followed as written. Correct me if I am wrong.


63 posted on 01/28/2016 7:14:22 AM PST by Ditter (God Bless Texas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
-- whoever would have adjudicated Cruz's citizenship status would have had to do so according to Public Law 414, Sec 301 -- Hah. You were the incompetent one before! 01/20/2016 4:56:14 AM PST . 66 of 66 1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7) [you'll find the text crossing from page 235 to 236]

------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly the section of Public Law 414 I'm talking about. The circumstances of Cruz's birth don't meet the requirements. Read my post, carefully. You seem to have scanned it and misinterpreted what I said:

My post in this thread: Why the circumstances of Cruz's birth don't meet 1952 Nationality and Naturalization Act, Sec 301(a)(7)

64 posted on 01/28/2016 7:31:50 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 2pets
The text of the law says that the citizen parent, prior to the birth of the child:

was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

The fact that Cruz's mom was a resident of Canada prior to his birth doesn't matter. The fact that (5) uses the modifier "at any time" [prior to] doesn't make any difference.

What is the rule that you propose (a)(7) imposes? What interval between entering Canada and giving birth renders (a)(7) inoperable? One second? One week? One year?

If you read the case law, the parental residence requirement, unless stated otherwise (e.g., "after fourteen years of age") is "at any time prior to" the birth.

65 posted on 01/28/2016 7:48:32 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

thanks


66 posted on 01/28/2016 7:59:06 AM PST by KC Burke (Two Corinthians walk into a bar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
There are two different forms of the "prior to" requirement used in the subsections of Sec 301(a): "prior to" and "at any time prior to." The two are not the same, hence the different terminology used within different subsections of the same Section. Sec 301(a)7 requires "prior to," NOT "at any time prior to."

Cruz's mother would meet the "at any time prior to" requirement, but does not meet the "prior to" requirement as she was a resident of Canada prior to Cruz's birth.

67 posted on 01/28/2016 7:59:37 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: 2pets
The difference between "prior to" and "at any time prior to" distinguishes the caes where the residency has an age attached to it.

Answer the question I posed, what interval is allowed to elapse between entering Canada (terminating residence in the US) and giving birth?

68 posted on 01/28/2016 8:03:01 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
"The fact that (5) uses the modifier "at any time" [prior to] doesn't make any difference."

------------------------------------------------

Based on what? Since when do time requirements not matter in federal law?

69 posted on 01/28/2016 9:36:03 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
"If you read the case law, the parental residence requirement, unless stated otherwise (e.g., "after fourteen years of age") is "at any time prior to" the birth."

---------------------------------------------------------

If they're doing so while specifically interpreting the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 to apply it to a case, then they're misquoting the law, aren't they?

Quite simply, the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 does not state "at any time prior to."

"At any time" does not apply to that subsection, while applying to another.

70 posted on 01/28/2016 9:36:03 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
"Answer the question I posed, what interval is allowed to elapse between entering Canada (terminating residence in the US) and giving birth?"

---------------------------------------------

That can be established by one's domicile. (Incidentally, Wong Kim Ark's parents' permanent US domicile was one of the main determinants in the ruling.) Where was the US citizen parent most recently legally living and working? In the US? In a foreign country? In Cruz's mother's case, it was Canada, for 3 years.

Did Cruz's mother maintain a residence in the US and list that as her legal residence on any legal transactions during that time?

This type of thing happens all the time on a smaller scale between states. Some people have residences in more than one state, but only one state is their domicile for legal purposes.

71 posted on 01/28/2016 9:36:03 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 2pets
-- If they're doing so while specifically interpreting the 1952 Law's Sec 301(a)7 to apply it to a case, then they're misquoting the law, aren't they? --

No. The law says "prior to," and that has a completely clear meaning except to the pedantic.

72 posted on 01/28/2016 9:40:02 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Oh, please. You know darned well words matter in legal statutes.

You seem to be just playing dumb on purpose.

"prior to" and "at any time prior to" are in fact two very different time designations.

73 posted on 01/28/2016 9:56:32 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 2pets

Yes, I know the words matter. You ad hominem is noted, and I’ll thank you to not engage me in a serious discussion for as long as you live. I’ll do the same for you.


74 posted on 01/28/2016 10:05:33 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 2pets
Hey DUMMY, you should RESEARCH a topic, BEFORE you expose YOUR INCOMPETENCE !



Now about the "for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, ". And as far as your "STRAW MAN" ACCUSATION about Oh, BULL !
Cruz's mother was NEVER a citizen of Canada, and ALWAYS MAINTAINED HER United States Citizenship.
Your 'Two different terms: "prior to" and "at any time prior to" ' amount to NOTHING !
Your "STRAW MAN" questions ARE IRRELEVANT !
75 posted on 01/28/2016 10:20:43 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Might want to look in the mirror when you say that. You called me incompetent, when in fact it was YOU who failed to comprehend my post.


76 posted on 01/28/2016 10:24:07 AM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
I think that your point is different than the author's point in the article.
Akhil Reed Amar, author of CNN's Why Ted Cruz is eligible to be president wrote: So the author, Akhil Reed Amar, is saying
But you're suggesting that And I believe that the author is saying that "THE COURT" should NOT HAVE RULED ON IT ... AT ALL !
77 posted on 01/28/2016 11:57:56 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: 2pets
I can be just as STUPID as you can.
Not only could the Founding Father define "natural born citizen", BUT ... THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID DEFINE IT !
And you ARE refusing the definition of "natural born citizen" CLEARLY DEFINED by our FOUNDING FATHERS !


78 posted on 01/28/2016 12:03:23 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
You, too, are yet another who fails to realize that "prior to" and "at any time prior to" (a requirement used in another Subsection of the same Section of the law) are two very different things.

Specifically, read Subsections 4, 5, and 7 of Section 301 to understand the difference.

Words matter.

Pages 73-74: 1952 Act

79 posted on 01/28/2016 1:48:02 PM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
I said Cruz's mother was a resident of Canada for 3 years prior to Cruz's birth, not a citizen of Canada.

Reading comprehension matters.

80 posted on 01/28/2016 1:48:02 PM PST by 2pets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson