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

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz, facing suits on Canadian birth, lawyers up
http://www.mcclatchydc.com ^ | March 1, 2016 | MARIA RECIO

Posted on 03/03/2016 10:05:54 PM PST by NKP_Vet

WASHINGTON Ted Cruz, tagged as "Canadian" by a needling Donald Trump since the GOP race tightened in January, rejects any idea of being ineligible to be U.S. president.

While Trump hasn't followed up on his threat to sue Calgary-born Cruz over what he says is the Texas senator not meeting the constitutional requirement of being a "natural-born citizen," plenty of other people have. Trump has warned that Democrats will disrupt the electoral process by suing if Cruz is the nominee.

And that's caused Cruz a bit of trouble. He has had to lawyer up to fight the more than half-dozen lawsuits around the country, some in federal court, some in state court. A Cook County, Ill., judge tossed one of the suits Tuesday, not over the citizenship issue but over a technicality of how the papers were served.

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016election; alexjones; birthers; breaking; cruz; nbc; tinfoilhattrump; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 next last
To: Yosemitest

Cruz is a Canadian citizen of Cuban extraction and not at all a NBC of the United States.

I hope that your $$$$ donations to FR are enough to pay for your abundant use of the available bandwidth required by your incessant silly posts.


41 posted on 03/03/2016 11:41:52 PM PST by Radix (Natural Born Citizens have Citizen parents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

You are not very bright are you? If one gets their citizenship from ones father than which was the case before the 1934 naturalization act than how can Cruz be a natural born citizen? Answer-he can’t, he is a naturalized citizen. Our constitution give Congress the ability to NATURALIZE citizens, so if legislation makes you a citizen you are a naturalized citizen not a natural born citizen. There is no law that make someone born here with two citizen parents a citizen, they are natural born citizens. This is not rocket science.


42 posted on 03/03/2016 11:43:08 PM PST by jpsb (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister

Thanks!


43 posted on 03/03/2016 11:47:16 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel (I am so very blessed! Thank You, JESUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Radix
WRONG !

The SUPREME COURT of the United States has ruled this issue before.


The statement that "natural born means both parents " has been DENIED by the courts !
44 posted on 03/03/2016 11:49:29 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Gump Shrimp

After drilling through the bazillion birther threads here on FR, I believe your conclusion is shared by thousands of Americans. Ted ignoring this issue can do nothing but hurt his chances.

The NBC requirement is interpreted by most Americans to be the strictest standard of citizenship. They simply can not be wrong with the child born in the United States to two citizen parents interpretation. It won’t matter if a court sides with Ted, the voter’s interpretation is all that matters.


45 posted on 03/03/2016 11:51:07 PM PST by xander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
WRONG.!
It must be hard to argue a FACT, when EVEN YOU KNOW that you're WRONG !
Read Comment #44, LOSER !
46 posted on 03/03/2016 11:52:05 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

How can one be a natural born citizen if one would not even be a citizen prior to 1934? Please answer the question without spamming the thread.


47 posted on 03/03/2016 11:56:44 PM PST by jpsb (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Try again, LOSER !

What I posted is in the contemporaneous Congressional Record of the 1st and 3rd United States Congresses.

How could you think anything regarding a recent Representative that placed a paper noting that in a recent Congressional record could change that.

48 posted on 03/03/2016 11:58:11 PM PST by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken! - voted Trump 2016 & Dude, Cruz ain't bona fide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Cruz is not naturalized. A naturalized citizen is one who was ineligible for citizenship and then goes through a process to become a citizen. Cruz could have become a citizen from birth by his mom filing for his BC. She didn’t. So while he was eligible from birth, he on paper had no documentation other than Canadian. Thus he entered the USA at 4 as a Canadian baby. He probably thought he was American his whole childhood, but he wasn’t until age 16 when his mother finally formalized it.

It’s almost an optics thing. It just feels weird to have a President who wasn’t even American until age 16.


49 posted on 03/04/2016 12:00:52 AM PST by Yaelle (We finally have a strong, courageous leader who likes US, the People!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

After this first court case the score is:

Cruz: 1
Birther Fever Swamp: 0

Since there are additional cases pending, Cruz’s score will change. The other score of course will remain at zero.


50 posted on 03/04/2016 12:02:39 AM PST by Dagnabitt (Islamic Immigration is Treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Hey Cruz: Get ooot!

(Pardon the Canadian accent)

:)


51 posted on 03/04/2016 12:02:48 AM PST by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXSearcher

He was still technically a Canadian in 2014. It’s an issue, and the other side is going to have a field day with it if he makes it to the general election.


52 posted on 03/04/2016 12:10:18 AM PST by Eisenhower Republican (Queeg is gone. Keefer's next.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ? TED CRUZ WAS BORN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN !

"An Un-Naturally Born Non-Controversy":

53 posted on 03/04/2016 12:12:22 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

What a waste of bandwidth you are.


54 posted on 03/04/2016 12:18:14 AM PST by stillfree? (Aren't you wonky!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: xander

and this isn’t just about Cruz. I see all sorts of people who could want him declared natural born because they will have their own agenda, and not directly relating to Cruz, but to other candidates down the road.

I see the possibility of foreign entities financially supporting Cruz and his claim in order to supplant their own Manchurian in the future.

This goes far beyond Cruz, and for such a “strict constitutionalist” he should see this, and I know he does, but he doesn’t care. This is all about HIM and those who have a pony in the show.

This is why I don’t trust lawyers. Cruz is no better than any of his ilk. At first I wanted to believe that he was, but he isn’t. He does not have the interest of the Constitution as his top priority, he has Ted Cruz as his top priority.

Many men have given their lives for this country and what it stands for, and folks aren’t even asking Ted to risk his life for his country like many in my Father’s generation and my generation did, but for the best interest of the future of this nation, he should put his presidential aspirations aside, and do the right thing, and uphold the intent of the constitution, not lawyer up and attempt to change the meaning through legal verbiage.

I think America is tired of lawyers telling us what the definition of “is” is. We know damn well what it is.

He may be a great man, but he’d be an even greater man if he put the Constitution above his own personal aspirations.


55 posted on 03/04/2016 12:19:49 AM PST by Bubba Gump Shrimp (noob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: stillfree?
You're "the WASTE" !

Where's your FACTS ?

Where's your LINKS ?

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS !
56 posted on 03/04/2016 12:21:18 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Hillary did not “invent” the “birther” issue. The requirements for the office of President are in the constitution. She is right on this one, and she was cheated of the democratic nomination by that usurper (which as far as I am concerned is the only good thing about Obama, he kept Hillary from returning to the the White House.)

Up until Obama’s candidacy, it was always understood that the President to be born on American soil, have two citizen parents, be 35 years of age, and 14 years living in the US. Hillary had every right to except the law to be honored and it was not. We all have the same right to have the constitution honored, and had the constitution been followed, we would not have had to endure these horrendous Obama years!


57 posted on 03/04/2016 12:29:31 AM PST by erkelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest; Bubba Gump Shrimp; NKP_Vet; BlackFemaleArmyCaptain; freedomjusticeruleoflaw; ...
In 1969 Pinckney McElwee uncovered evidence in the House Committee notes from 1795 which indicate that the reason the reference to natural born citizen (NBC), included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, but entirely removed from the 1795 Naturalization Act, was that people would wrongly infer that that Act was actually intending that those born overseas outside the country were to become natural born citizens. Clearly Madison was not wanting to make natural born citizens of the children born overseas to American parents.

Here is the text of the 1790 Naturalization Act:
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

1795 Naturalization Act text change:
, 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 on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.

James Madison had written "shall be considered as natural born citizens" He did not say, shall be as natural born citizens. In the revised act that abolished the first he corrected his own text to make it less susceptible to misinterpretation.

Both Matthew Spalding and Jack Maskell, allegedly American history scholars, each conspicuously failed to address the fact that the 1795 Naturalization Act entirely repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, and was a near-verbatim repeat of that Act, except entirely removing the reference to “natural born citizen”. The failure to address this conflict with their arguments strongly indicates an agenda in disregard of fact.

In 1795, James Madison himself actually expressed concern that some might erroneously infer, from the 1790 Act, that the foreign-born children of American parents actually “are” (not merely “considered as”) natural born citizens. McElwee indicates:

Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
(McElwee, Natural Born Citizen, 1967, Page 10)

I pity you Yosemitest, for not believing the words of James Madison, the author of the US Constitution. If this is ever judged by our Congress, they will refer back to the contemporaneous notes of the Third Congress. The fact that I know this, and multiple hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of voters know this, dooms the brash and malicious candidacy of Ted Cruz.

Hint: If they don't know it now, the Democrats will make sure everyone knows it by election day!

58 posted on 03/04/2016 12:47:10 AM PST by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken! - voted Trump 2016 & Dude, Cruz ain't bona fide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

You seem deranged. But here’s a fun fact. My vote cancels yours. Now go back to blathering.


59 posted on 03/04/2016 1:02:36 AM PST by stillfree? (Aren't you wonky!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
Ted Cruz would not even be a citizen of the USA before 1934.

"Prior to May 24, 1934, U.S. citizen mothers were not permitted to transmit U.S. citizenship to their children born abroad. The Act of May 24, 1934 (the "1934 Statute") gave U.S. citizen mothers equality of status regarding their ability to transmit U.S. citizenship. However the provision was not applied retroactively. Therefore, children born before May 24, 1934 to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father did not acquire U.S. citizenship."

http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

60 posted on 03/04/2016 1:15:19 AM PST by jpsb (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-155 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