PROOF=> Ted Cruz Cheating Scandal Not Linked to Trump Campaign – Was Started by GOP Elites

Gateway Pundit ^ | March 25, 2016 | Jim Hoft

[WhiskeyX]

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Be President?

HarvardLawSchool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irAj-ajgJL8

[Bob434]

[[As Laurence Tribe and other legal scholars on both sides of the controversy and political spectrum have accurately noted, the Congress does not have the power to define or redefine Natural Law or the meaning of natural born citizen]]

None of which they did Whiskey- as the expert here you shoudl know they didn’t- They do however have the power to define who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t- you shoudl also know that the powers that be left the issue open to changing times and conditions- as the nation grew and circumstances changed, congress would necessarily be called upon to further refine who needed to be naturalized

[[All of which is nothing more than your imagination]]

nonsense- they are not my opinion- they are fact- Recent court cases have accomplished exactly what i said they did- Yuo can look them up yourself-

[[It has always been so since the English Parliament and other European governments began to naturalize alien born persons.]]

Subjects of hte king born off soil were considered subjects of the king still- if you are goign to argue natural law/common law- then you can’t simpyl discount htese to fit your particular bias o nthe issue-

[[As Laurence Tribe and other legal scholars on both sides of the controversy and political spectrum have accurately noted, the Congress does not have the power to define or redefine Natural Law]]

And yet as lawrence tribe has noted, Ted is ifnact a Natural born citizen under current law- You may have some experience, but I’ll wager Tribe has more- if you wish to dissagree with his viewpoint, then lay your case out-

[[U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) are wholly consistent with the centuries old doctrine of only naturalizing children born abroad.]]

1401 and 1409 and recent court cases refute that- Yuo can call this imagination all you like, but the courts have recognized Congress’ right to define who needs to be naturalized and who doesn’t

[[Now to a genuine conservative of the sort Cruz famously claims to be when it suits his purposes, Congress has no power at all to define Constitutional terms, whether they’re terms of art like natural born citizen or ordinary language terms like liberty or the free exercise of religion. Congress has no such power, and I might add that Cruz also questions the power of the Supreme Court to define Constitutional terms in a binding way, conveniently leaving only Cruz himself, it seems, with that august power.]]

None of which they did when defining naturalization

[[Although I am prepared to debate Laurence Tribe myself and demonstrate how he has used many serious errors in his statements,]]

Let us know how that turns out for you-

[[he explicitly says the exact opposite of what you have just falsely claimed he said in the above paragraph.]]

You can look it up yourself- He did not say the direct opposite-

[[Ted Cruz is allegedly a naturalized citizen of the United States.]]

Tell me, when did he go through hte naturalization process? Answer- He didn’t- Never had to as he was a citizen AT BIRTH- can you point everyone to the process he undertook to become naturalized?

[[I say allegedly, because the currently available evidence lacks basic documentation, such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) or equivalent,]]

I’m sure you are aware the CRBA is not needed as proof of Us citizenship? The parents ‘can file for one’ for further proof IF they so choose, or wishes to get a passport- Applyign for, and receivign a CRBA dfoes NOT cofner citizenship- and it is not needed because the child gains citizenship by descent, birthright- not by an act- The parents ‘may acquire’ if they so choose- it is not needed for the transmission of citizenship just sanguinis

[[At no time in a millennia of Anglo-American jurisprudence has a child born abroad ever derived English, British, or U.S. natural born citizenship by descent from a citizen mother and an alien father.]]

Psssst- it’s happening now- You can argue that congress doesn’t have the right to define who needs to be naturalized if you like- but as I mentioned the courts recognize they do have that right- and there is a reason they aren’t touching recent cases because they recognize Congress has that right

[[nonsense you are spouting in complete denial of reality]]

Are you related to CDBolt? Because the two of you act exactly alike- you can’t seem to discuss an issue without acting like a child- IF you wish to discuss the issue civilly, I’ll be more than happy to do so- if you can’t ring yourself to discuss the issue without the obsessive need to belittle your opponent, then i have no desire to continue discussing the issue

[[As the video and the historical legal evidence demonstrate, you made false statements and perhaps outright lied]]

Oh goody- another poster who can’t discuss an issue without constantly accusing his opponent of lying- I had enough of that rude nonsense with CDBolt- IF you wish to continue discussing the issue- refrain from being rude- I argue my points to the best of my knowledge- I am NOT lying about anything- IF I am misunderstanding points, then point it out- but either refrain from calling me aa liar or drop this issue altogether if you can’t brign yourself to engage in a civil discussion!

[Bob434]

congratulations, you foudn a libertarian group who disagrees with recent court rulings and 1401 and 1409- swell- many more groups actually agree with the recent court rulings, and the two laws I mentioned-

Here- here’s soem which are directly opposite what your yuotube group espouse

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

“Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” One may also be a “natural born Citizen” if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen

[[It is significant to note that in a more recent case, in 2001, the Supreme Court indicated that under
current law and jurisprudence a child born to U.S. citizens while living or traveling abroad, and a
child born in the geographic United States, had the same legal status. In
Tuan Anh Nguyen v.
INS
,
162
the Court explained that a woman who is a U.S. citizen living abroad and expecting a
child could re-enter the United States and have the child born “in” the United States, or could stay abroad and not travel back to this country and have the child born abroad, and that the child in
either case would have the same status as far as U.S. citizenship:
[T]he statute simply ensures
equivalence
between two expectant mothers who are citizens
abroad if one chooses to reenter for the child’
s birth and the other chooses not to return, or
does not have the means to do so.
163]]

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

From the same link

[[The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has specifically recognized in a recent
case that one may be a “natural born” citizen of the United Sates in two ways: either by being
born in the United States, or by being born abroad of at least one citizen-parent who has met the
residency requirement. In
United States v. Carlos Jesus Marguet-Pillado
, a case dealing with the
propriety of an appeal based on requested jury instructions not given, the court stated:
No one disputes that Marguet-Pillado’s requested instruction was “an accurate statement of
the law,” in that it correctly stated the two circumstances in which an individual born in 1968
is a natural born United States citizen: (1) that the person was born in the United States or (2)
born outside the United States to a biologically
-related United States citizen parent who met
certain residency requirements.
16]]

Also from same link

[[Although the legal cases specifically concerning Senator McCain’s eligibility were generally
dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction (that is, the lack of legal standing of the
plaintiff),
168
a federal district court for the Northern District of California did note that Senator
McCain would qualify as a citizen “at birth,” and
thus was a “natural born” citizen, since he was
born “out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States” to U.S. citizen parents, as provided
for in federal nationality statutes in force at the time of his birth.
169]]

So yeah- you can cite cases all day long and so can i- the fact is the issue is not settled contrary to your belief that it is or that it should be- Recent court cases have made it clear that amendments clearly dictate who does and who doesn’t need it

[Bob434]

[[I have 52 years of experience in studying this Presidential eligibility controversy, so there are attorneys and judges who have learned from what I have been able to offer in information about this dispute.]]

And yet the courts still find that a person born to a US citizen off soil automatically get citizenship via descent- birthright of their sovereign us citizen parent- The courts have found no difference in the status of a child who is born off soil to a US mother who chose not to return either out of necessity or choice, as a mother who is a us citizen abroad who chooses to return to have her child here in te states

If you have a good argument as to why recent courts are wrong=- other than an originalist argument which obviously the courts do not agree with, then let’s here it- because as it stands the law states a child receives natural born citizenship status either by begin born here on soil, or born off soil to a us citizen parent- the only stipulation is that the parents need to be wed at the time, otherwise, 1409 kicks in and the unwed father needs to fulfill some guideline if he is the sole parent- but this has to do with bond issues and allegiance issues by establishing lineage, not anything to do with whether the child is actually an NBC or not-

You obviously feel you are right, and apparently think you are mroe right than the courts- and evidently you don’t recognize their decisions in recent years- but I’m to take your word for the matter over the court’s recent decisions, recent amendments/statutes that fly i n the face of their decisions why?