Posted on 02/06/2016 4:30:57 PM PST by TBBT
You can know Cruz by his enemies. And they are out in force today. Dark forces, even. The left has a narrative and they're pushing it ahead of tonight's debate.
Take this story, for example, from Mediaite:
Mediaite-2
From the article:
Things got a bit dicey for Ted Cruz yesterday, as he found himself in a heated exchange about his Canadian origins with a potential voter at an event in New Hampshire.
But of course, that's not at all what happened. First of all, he wasn't "cornered." That's ridiculous. He was taking questions from the audience. This was someone on in the audience. "Cornered" is ridiculous.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
But there is still something about him that smells funny.
Your confusion is noted. You will remain so until you gain insight. It might take time.
Its not that much to ask for. Those that aspire to this crucial leadership position better have skills.
I dont expect perfection but you better be able to do this better than me. So far TC has impressed me for being more of a fighter than I would have expected. And now I realize that right now - you have to be a fighter.
OK, fair enough. The thing is, he is the only candidate that is feared by the MSM and the Pubbies alike. Is he a Trojan horse? Who knows in these days of image control and sound bite exposure. However, he has taken a fair amount of flak and some mightily courageous positions as bush league Senator. I will stand with him over any other wannbe until he proves otherwise.
We need some kind of leader other than a RINO or a media whore.
We are in a serious rock-and-a-hard-place situation.
“That said, I originally supported him but have come to just dislike him.
He unctuous.
Something about him is just offputting. “
We’ve traveled the “same road” with respect to Ted! And this idea espoused by some that Ted has some sort of “devine calling” is just hard to imagine.
It’s more fun if just read a tiny bit and make comments on what you think it may have said.
Red State is bats*** crazy.
"Don't worry, Nell! I'll save you!!"
:-p
If Ted’s Parent[s} are Americans, then he is, too. No matter where his is born. Give it up. It is a non-issue.
But his dad was a cuban citizen or a canadian citizen at the time of Ted’s birth.
They lived in Canada.
As such, jus soli means Ted is not eligible. Ted cannot be a natural born citizen with an alien parent.
You might think its a non issue but I can guarantee the Democrats will take issue with it
On what grounds? They have yet to produce a birth certificate for Barky. For most Americans, the birther static is just so much noise.
O’bambam produced a sketchy birth certificate claiming he was whelped in Hawaii (arguably part of the USA).
The gutless GOP refused to fight.
Cruz admits that he was born in Canada.
OK, you’re going to have to trust me on this ...
If you support Cruz, then it makes since the Democrats and GOP-e will not want him heading the ticket.
They will fight Cruz.
If you think the GOP-e (and even the Democrats) will support, or not fight Cruz, then you must admit that Ted’s a Beltway Insider, possibly a member of the cheap labor express, and subscriber to other things we hate here, and as Struther Martin put it,
“What we got here is a failure to communicate.”
There is a special place in hell for people who don’t for Ted Cruz!
And Hilary!
Of course. Why would Satan be interested in a presidential race or someone like Cruz?
Why would people like the ones who shouted “hail Satan” in Austin over legislation against abortion be against Cruz?
Or why would Planned Parenthood be against Cruz? They just rely on billions of tax dollars to provide women’s health services like killing babies and selling their body parts. How could anyone think that is Satanic?
Or the ones who threw a clerk in jail because she would not issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. How could anyone think their love is Satanic? And why would they have any interest in Cruz, anyway?
People have such vivid imaginations. Is Satan even real? Where is there any evidence? Come on. This is the twenty-first century.
“jus soli means Ted is not eligible”
I did not realize “jus soli” was in the Constitution. Perhaps I need to get one of your updated copies. Mine left that part out.
But they weren’t, at least not both of them.
Try to keep up.
“jus soli means Ted is not eligibleâ€
I did not realize “jus soli†was in the Constitution. Perhaps I need to get one of your updated copies. Mine left that part out.
Foreign influence: On September 4, 1787, the framers of the Constitution changed the presidential eligibility requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen”. According to multiple historical sources, the primary purpose of this wording change was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency and thereby reduce the risk of “foreign influence” [05]. Apparently, a person who is merely a U.S. “citizen” can also be a “foreigner” in some sense, but a “natural born citizen” is one who is not a “foreigner”, at least not in the same sense [06].
Since natural born citizenship pertains only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth [07], the only “foreigners” that the “natural born citizen” provision can possibly exclude from the presidency are persons who are “foreigners” at birth.
When the U.S. Constitution was being written, meaning of the word “foreigner” was not limited to persons born overseas; it also included anyone who was a citizen or subject of a foreign country (see Question 8: Meaning of “foreigner”). When President Obama was born, he was a “foreigner” according to the 18th century meaning of the term: he acquired foreign nationality (in addition to a U.S. citizenship) at birth [08]. An increasing number of Americans are therefore concerned that Barack Obama Jr., though a U.S. citizen, might not be a natural born citizen, hence might not be constitutionally eligible to serve as president [09].
“Since natural born citizenship pertains only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth [07], the only ‘foreigners’ that the ‘natural born citizen’ provision can possibly exclude from the presidency are persons who are ‘foreigners’ at birth.’”
This part of your argument is a tautology. While I do have to agree your argument about foreign influence is valid because it deals with intent, your conclusive statement above is circular reasoning. Of course someone who is born a foreigner and becomes a US citizen cannot also be a natural born citizen. There are two kind of citizens: naturalized and natural born. Naturalization is the process of making a foreigner a citizen. The only question is whether being born abroad automatically makes someone a foreigner according to the founders’ original intent.
The problem with your argument is that it forces the awkward position of calling the first act of naturalization in 1790 an unconstitutional act even though it was enacted by the same founders who ratified the Constitution 18 months earlier. This means the consensus among the founders must have been that “natural” when it pertains to citizenship at birth is based on Vattel’s perspective — Jus sanguinis, and NOT Jus soli.
Being born abroad does not automatically make someone a foreigner. Indians were “natives”, i.e. natural born, but not citizens because of jurisdiction. If a citizen is abroad, they still owe allegiance to their homeland unless their citizenship is renounced (or in some cases stripped from them). Vattel says that children “naturally” follow the condition of their father’s at birth. This would make children born of US citizens abroad natural born citizens if their citizenship is recognized at birth.
“When President Obama was born, he was a ‘foreigner’ according to the 18th century meaning of the term: he acquired foreign nationality (in addition to a U.S. citizenship) at birth [08].”
Clearly Obama’s upbringing is foreign. His loyalty to this country was questionable from the start. Now his actions have proved he is unquestionably disloyal to this nation. However, the issue of Obama being a natural born citizen for him is not as cut and dry as you make it. Yes, according to the 18th century meaning in which citizenship is naturally passed from the father, you are correct. But it is not making the Constitution a living document to point out that the Constitution itself has been amended in regard to the role of women. Women now vote, own property, and hold public office. If the laws of naturalization recognize US citizenship conveyed by either parent, then such citizenship is being conferred “naturally” even by Vattel (even though Vattel identified father’s in particular, Vattel also refers to the citizenship of the parents).
Cruz and Obama both received their citizenship under the naturalization act of 1952. Cruz was born abroad, but his mother met the residency requirements for him to be born a citizen. He did not need to naturalize. Obama, on the other hand, was only a citizen at birth IF he was born on US soil because his mother did NOT meet the requirements of this act.
Bottom line, the act in 1790 makes the original intent of the founders clear when it comes to natural born citizens. They understood “natural” to be, not based on British common law, but according to natural law as described by Vattel.
Cruz is a citizen because his mother is but he is not a NBC because his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth
One is fine. Barky proved it.
hree Theories: Today, there are three conflicting theories regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the U.S. Constitution:
The citizenship-at-birth theory defines “natural born citizen” as anyone who acquires U.S. citizenship at the time of her or his birth [14]. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, the phrase “natural born citizen” is used only in reference to children who are U.S. citizens at birth; persons who become U.S. citizens after they are born are considered merely as “citizens” [15].
The birthplace-only theory asserts that every child born on U.S. soil (except the child of a foreign diplomat or enemy invader) is automatically a U.S. natural born citizen, regardless of the nationality or immigration status of the child’s parents. The phrase “natural born”, as used in the Constitution, appears to originate from 18th century English law. Nearly all children born on English soil were, at birth, “natural-born” subjects of the king, regardless of whether their parents were English or alien.
The exclusive-citizenship theory (also called the two-parent theory) defines “natural born citizen” as one who, at birth, is a citizen of the United States exclusively and is not a citizen or subject of any foreign country. The only way to guarantee exclusive U.S. citizenship at birth is to be born on U.S. soil, of parents who are both citizens of the United States exclusively. Birth in a foreign country, or birth to a foreign-citizen parent, leaves open the possibility of foreign nationality at birth [16].
The citizenship-at-birth theory is mentioned here only for sake of completeness.
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.