Posted on 04/08/2016 5:08:31 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
The articles links to another source that they claim is more extensive: Derek Muller, associate professor of law at Pepperdine University, has been keeping a tally of the suits
Actually, there could be a ruling that reverses the damage of the Kenyan. If Trump gets in and stacks the USSC the way hes already indicated with conservative America-first Judges then our judicial system might be able to rule on the issue without political fear.
It pays to remember,IMHO, that the current court is 5/3 on issues important to the regime and 4/4 otherwise since Roberts is compromised.
Reference ping, thank you.
NJ Victor Williams - Administrative Law hearing April 11 CA MD MO NE OR SD WA
In Houston, during the period away from his family, a friend in the oil business took Rafael to a Baptist church. There, he told me, "I surrendered myself to Christ." Soon after, he reunited with his wife and son—an episode that Ted casts as evidence of the hand of God in his life. Ted Cruz's Secret Weapon In May 1993, the couple separated, court records show. Rafael filed for divorce after several years.
I’m still waiting for the Donald to produce the damning evidence on Barry’s BC. I hate these drama queens too.
You will have a really hard time seeing that real BC because you would have to search around in Canadian files under the name Stephen Barnard Dunham.
Just another hot air group looking for attention.
If they have something, bring it; otherwise, just shut up.
Not that long before, Less than a generation ago, from what I’ve read.
I have always felt it in best for any of the candidates (rubio or Cruz) to get this clarified AHEAD OF THE FACT so their campaigns could dwell on issues rather than this matter nipping at their heels....but my biggest concern has been the big O - the biggest fraud. Getting him disqualified from holding office at this point, nullifying his presidency and I understand would negate all the “cute” little executive orders he has slammed on we the people
>> Have you ever asked 0bama for his birth certificate, college transcripts, medical records? <<
Thanks for another beautiful non-sequitur!
>> How did Cruz get to be a US Senator with dual citizenship? <<
Top secret, my FRiend, top secret.
And once more, this trick just proves how devilishly smart and crafty this Cruz guy is.
Now when it comes to Mr. Trump, it’s a very good thing that he is smart and crafty. He will use those talents to make America great again.
But Cruz? He gives “smart” and “crafty” bad names.
>> Was this not George Romney’s undoing in the 60s? <<
Nope. It was his confession that he had been “brainwashed” about the Vietnam War.
(I’m sure that no American voter — then or now — would ever want a POTUS who could be so easily misled about such an overwhelmingly important issue.)
>> Seems like a legit source <<
Indeed. Those devious Macedonian IT guys will fool you every time.
>> So nothing happened to change the law from 1795 to the 1950s? <<
Please don’t use common sense, logic or legal knowledge to confuse the issue. Mr. Trump can do no wrong, and Sen. Cruz can do no right. Get over it. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Hey guys, why don't you finish with the Kenyan first....................
If a genegation includes the 1800s, then ok.
Iirc the 1790 law had the overseas/outside-the-us children included in natural born category, while the 1795 law changed it, leaving overseas/outside-the-US kids as just plain citizens.
Look at it this way, anyone having dual citizenship (example Cruz, born canada, Cuban or Canadian dad, us mom) would not have undivided connection/attachment/influence, which would be problematic if they became president.
That’s what the founders were concerned about, they had just gotten independence from Britain, with its hereditary rulers/heads of state, and they didn’t want anyone with those sentiments making inroads on the new nation, from the highest position of power.
In addition, the concept -and implementation- of elected head of state was just not done back then.
There still were British loyalists in the colonies, with royalist thinking/ideology.
They may not have established themselves as us citizens.
That’s why the “citizen at the time of adoption” was in the qualifications for president.
Then later on, when the next generation was coming up, they wanted “natural born” (no loyalty to another nation), to preclude royalists from getting into office.
Back then, the wife took her husband’s citizenship, so “citizens” meant the man+wife as a unit; a couple.
Then, if the couple was a citizen, and they were in the US, the child would also be a citizen, with no question as to what nation had claim on their allegiance.
The whole body of law after the qualifications set out in the Constitution/bill of rights came as a result of questions ...
What if the couple is overseas, what if just the mom is a citizen, what if just the dad is a citizen, what if the dad isn’t a citizen, but has residency in the US, what if the mom was a widow, what if the mom was unmarried, etc etc.
Ray76,
I meant to ping you, but I forgot to put the “76” after the “ray”...
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.