alan grayson threatens lawsuit on citizenship grounds if ted cruz is the gop nominee

[Syriusly]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

 

[washamericom]

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

since 4/27/11, i'm all in.

 

[washamericom]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

plus he wasn't running for either office.

Obama’s supporters will tell everyone who will listen that Barack Obama produced his real birth certificate in 2011. A single reporter – Savannah Guthrie of NBC news — was allowed to see the “real” document, and then it was scanned as a PDF file and loaded into the internet for everyone to see. As far as the Obama crowd is concerned, that’s the end of the story.

Wash- I don't normally humor your posts because you have the attention span of a chihuahua being taken out for the first time in a week.

What I would tell you is what the State of Hawaii has said- that Barack Obama presented his real birth certificate in 2008.
He then showed a room of reporters certified copies of his original birth certificate in 2011- one of whom handled it and took a picture of it- and posted that online- and to no one's surprise but Birther's (including Donald Trump) that photo matched the photo posted online by the Administration.

The photo verified by the State of Hawaii.

The only question is why any idiots still believe your crap, after the State of Hawaii has refuted it since 2008.

you only let your dogs out once a week ? i suppose that's better than eating them.

 

[Syriusly]

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

plus he wasn't running for either office.

Obama’s supporters will tell everyone who will listen that Barack Obama produced his real birth certificate in 2011. A single reporter – Savannah Guthrie of NBC news — was allowed to see the “real” document, and then it was scanned as a PDF file and loaded into the internet for everyone to see. As far as the Obama crowd is concerned, that’s the end of the story.

Wash- I don't normally humor your posts because you have the attention span of a chihuahua being taken out for the first time in a week.

What I would tell you is what the State of Hawaii has said- that Barack Obama presented his real birth certificate in 2008.
He then showed a room of reporters certified copies of his original birth certificate in 2011- one of whom handled it and took a picture of it- and posted that online- and to no one's surprise but Birther's (including Donald Trump) that photo matched the photo posted online by the Administration.

The photo verified by the State of Hawaii.

The only question is why any idiots still believe your crap, after the State of Hawaii has refuted it since 2008.

you only let your dogs out once a week ? i suppose that's better than eating them.

 

[easyt65]

Surprised this thread is still going....thought no one would want to he associated with, defend, excuse Birther Grayson...

 

[Faun]

I just want to point out that Birthers can find no example of Americans believing this crap in the 100 years prior to Obama running for election.

And I just want to point out that no one has accepted the appeal to popularity as valid argument for some 3000 years. But that's only because science proved WAY BACK THEN... that such is a fatally flawed, thus unsound logical construct... thus such is unworthy of consideration by reasonable people.

Now is there anyway that we can demonstrate this?

Hmm...

Ok.... Let's try this:

You say that for over a century, 'just being BORN in the USA to at least one US Citizen is plenty to be a "Natural Born Citizen".

So fine... we let of Chester take his seat on the bench, because 'its just the Vice Presidency... and BANG! four months later he's the President... .

Fast forward 120ish years and a poor black child of dubious birth origins, is born to a communist bitch US Citizen, sired by a communist Kenyan. His party says he was born in the only state in the US which legally provided Birth Certs to foreign born children during that time... and what the hell... he's in.

While Chester muddled through his time without any major damage... and while some douche no one has ever heard of was VP to some President of no consequence, despite also being the child of a foreign National parent... the THIRD TIME was the evil charm.

In the nidst of the the carnage from the catastrophic failure of socialist economic policy... and as the US is at war with a fair percentage of Islam engaged in an international manhunt for Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin... Come to the stage... the PROOF CERTAIN that God has a WICKED SENSE OF HUMOR... a Brown Clown by the name of Barak Hussein Obama.

A man who pledged to "Fundamentally Change" the US Constitution... who has stepped around the Constitution, rejected the Charter of Principles... added more debt to the US Federal Budget than every President who came before him, who has implemented foreign policy that has directly resulted in the reversal of US influence in the Middle East, empowered the enemies of the US and the latest information is that he founded, funded, armed and trained "AL QAEDA on STEROIDS", OKA: ISIS and has done everything in his power, without getting arrested and charged with treason... to promote the interests, lending aid and comfort at every point possible.

The damage that this creature has done to the United States as a direct consequence of his disdain for American principle is INCALCULABLE.

The ONLY reason that he was able to do that... is because some idiots in the 1880s wanted to put Chester Author's fat ass up as Vice President... and to do that they made the same specious argument that these idiots are making.

And as was inevitable... nefarious forces used that idiocy to sit the Brown Clown and severely, if not fatally injure the United States.

Consequences like 5% unemployment and a record high stock market?

Nothing more amusing than a leftist desperately pretending he really believes that people look around and go, "Wow, what a GREAT economy! Golly gee whiz, we need more of THIS!"

5% unemployment. Fool, please.

Great.

Yet another rightard who thinks the BLS somehow lost their ability to accurately measure unemployment.

 

[dcraelin]

except the clause we are concerned with is not clause 4

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

 

[Syriusly]

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

What are the eligibility requirements for President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

Surprised this thread is still going....thought no one would want to he associated with, defend, excuse Birther Grayson...

Yet you promote- and associate with- Birther Trump.

Only idiots are Birthers and those who support Birthers are even bigger idiots.

 

[dcraelin]

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

What are the eligibility requirements for President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution?

it is you that claims to know the US Constitution ....ah in clause 4?

 

[Syriusly]

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

What are the eligibility requirements for President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution?

it is you that claims to know the US Constitution ....ah in clause 4?

You either know them or you don't.

I will give you a hint- there are three.

 

[dcraelin]

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

What are the eligibility requirements for President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution?

it is you that claims to know the US Constitution ....ah in clause 4?

You either know them or you don't.

I will give you a hint- there are three.

this from the person who gets the wrong clause.......and the point was your quoted case didn't and coudn't prove what you said......

 

[Faun]

Well feel free to bring that up to the Indiana Court of Appeals- meanwhile as the courts have repeatedly confirmed:

The Indiana Court of Appeals then concludes:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

Which is exactly what American voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court decided also.

notice they didnt say clause 4, or clause 5

Wong kim Ark, I dont believe, addressed presidential eligibility because prominent law professors have said the issue has not been adjudicated by the SC.

You should point that out to the Indiana Court of Appeals- I am sure that they would be fascinated.

Meanwhile I will point out that the Indiana Court of Appeals consists of actual legal experts- with actual legal authority- who reviewed the law and stated:

we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

You want to find an actual ruling that says otherwise- feel free to post it.

I really find it hard to believe what your saying.....I dont even think they really said section 1...Ive read most of Wong some time ago and it was wrong . but also had nothing to do with someone running for president. Why the indiana court would comment on that is difficult to understand.....if they did it was an aside and has no legal authority.

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

Why would they have to? The term, "natural born citizen," can apply to anyone who meets that qualification. Their job has nothing to do with that status and Supreme Court rulings which touch on such matters have nothing to do with occupation.

 

[Syriusly]

Well you are on track to being a Birther then.

You refuse to believe what actual legal authorities say, and instead rely upon your own interpretation and what Birthers tell you on the internet.

Huzzah!

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

What are the eligibility requirements for President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution?

it is you that claims to know the US Constitution ....ah in clause 4?

You either know them or you don't.

I will give you a hint- there are three.

this from the person who gets the wrong clause.......and the point was your quoted case didn't and coudn't prove what you said......

And how did I get any clause wrong?

I quoted the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Let me ask- do you really have no clue as to what the eligibility requirements for the President are- and just don't care enough to find out- but are just willing to carry the Birther's water?

There are three requirements- just 3.

Can you tell us what they are- or not?

 

[dcraelin]

no I refuse to believe what YOU say. Use some common sense.....has someone named Wong ever run for president?...if not then this suit was not about presidential qualifications. ....is running for president a nationwide issue?........if so, then I would think it cannot be decided by a district court alone.

What are the eligibility requirements for President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution?

it is you that claims to know the US Constitution ....ah in clause 4?

You either know them or you don't.

I will give you a hint- there are three.

this from the person who gets the wrong clause.......and the point was your quoted case didn't and coudn't prove what you said......

And how did I get any clause wrong?

I quoted the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Let me ask- do you really have no clue as to what the eligibility requirements for the President are- and just don't care enough to find out- but are just willing to carry the Birther's water?

There are three requirements- just 3.

Can you tell us what they are- or not?

then they got the clause wrong...which says something about their opinion doesnt it.

 

[Syriusly]

What are the eligibility requirements for President of the United States per the U.S. Constitution?

it is you that claims to know the US Constitution ....ah in clause 4?

You either know them or you don't.

I will give you a hint- there are three.

this from the person who gets the wrong clause.......and the point was your quoted case didn't and coudn't prove what you said......

And how did I get any clause wrong?

I quoted the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Let me ask- do you really have no clue as to what the eligibility requirements for the President are- and just don't care enough to find out- but are just willing to carry the Birther's water?

There are three requirements- just 3.

Can you tell us what they are- or not?

then they got the clause wrong...which says something about their opinion doesnt it.

Well since you don't even know what the eligibility requirements are- how would you even know?

 

[Syriusly]

Since DC refuses to read the Constitution here in all of its glory here is the relevant part

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.
    
    
    
    

 

[oreo]

i know, the birther thing again, doesn't seem to want to go away.

anyway republicans want sick people to die quickly. grayson is back. he is the dizzying hugo chavez of our American congress.

Alan Grayson Threatens Lawsuit on Citizenship Grounds if Ted Cruz Is the GOP Nominee - Breitbart

if you google die quickly, you get this:




COLMES: Well, his mother was born here, so I guess like Obama, though it’s interesting to me the people who had a problem with Obama, though it’s interesting to me that the people who had a problem with Obama’s birth certificate don’t have a problem with Ted Cruz who literally was born in another country and renounced his Canadian citizenry.

GRAYSON: I don’t know … the Constitution says natural-born Americans, so now we’re counting Canadians as natural born Americans? How does that work? I’m waiting for the moment that he gets the nomination and then I will file that beautiful lawsuit saying that he’s unqualified for the job because he’s ineligible.

COLMES: So you’re saying should he get the nomination, Alan Grayson will file a lawsuit against his candidacy.

GRAYSON: Absolutely! Call me crazy but I think the president of America should be an American.

COLMES: Now I wonder, does he qualify because of having an American mother can considered an American citizen and in fact he renounced his Canadian citizenship to be an American citizen, but you’re talking about American birth, but I believe if that’s one of you parents —

GRAYSON: Look, even the anchor babies are actually born here. He doesn’t even meet that qualification.

COLMES: Right. And although I don’t like the term anchor babies, it’s been embraced by people like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — not Ted Cruz — Marco Rubio who may in fact be one, as I understand.

GRAYSON: Oh, it’s shocking. In Cruz’s case, it is obvious what happened. The Canadians got pissed off at us for acid rain, so they gave us Ted Cruz.

grayson is not considered to be one of the high intellectuals of the DC congress...
alan colmes is just plain creepy.

Good for Grayson.

You're upset about the Obama birther sham, but you are more than willing to challenge the citizenship of a Republican senator. Lol.

Who's the kook now?

If Cruz was born in Canada he has the same problem former Michigan governor Jennifer granholm has. That's as far as she can go because she was born in Canada.

Sounds to me like Cruz ain't denying he's a wetback from the great white north aye?

Or Arnold swartzanigger.

It's hypocrisy at it's best. Cruz was all Over Obama about a birth certificate--when he, himself wasn't born in the United States. What a Tea Party member (will never consider) is: If Cruz is the nominee, what will Democrats do with this information. They are going to raise a huge stink about it, is what they're going to do.

Democrats are also going to put the below video out on a 24/7 hour loop, in an advertisement.



They're also going to bring up his attendance at a Gay Hate party, a couple of weeks ago, where the speaker was calling for executions of Gay People
WATCH: Rachel Maddow Breaks Down Pastor's 'Kill the Gays' Rally Attended by GOP Candidates | Advocate.com

This is the problem with the far right of the Republican Party. They don't understand the make-up of the electorate that won't vote for far right candidates. They think that the majority of the Republican party think like them, and they don't realize that they represent less than 20% of the party. They also don't know that Republicans are the minority party, and independents are a must win to win the White House. Yet they continually put up far Religious right candidates, that don't have a snowballs chance at winning a National election, and are only good for a lot of negative news coverage.
A Race to the Bottom on Women's Rights

If Ted Cruz is the GOP nominee, he will get steam rolled and buried on election night.

 

[dcraelin]

it is you that claims to know the US Constitution ....ah in clause 4?

You either know them or you don't.

I will give you a hint- there are three.

this from the person who gets the wrong clause.......and the point was your quoted case didn't and coudn't prove what you said......

And how did I get any clause wrong?

I quoted the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Let me ask- do you really have no clue as to what the eligibility requirements for the President are- and just don't care enough to find out- but are just willing to carry the Birther's water?

There are three requirements- just 3.

Can you tell us what they are- or not?

then they got the clause wrong...which says something about their opinion doesnt it.

Well since you don't even know what the eligibility requirements are- how would you even know?

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

 

[Syriusly]

You either know them or you don't.

I will give you a hint- there are three.

this from the person who gets the wrong clause.......and the point was your quoted case didn't and coudn't prove what you said......

And how did I get any clause wrong?

I quoted the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Let me ask- do you really have no clue as to what the eligibility requirements for the President are- and just don't care enough to find out- but are just willing to carry the Birther's water?

There are three requirements- just 3.

Can you tell us what they are- or not?

then they got the clause wrong...which says something about their opinion doesnt it.

Well since you don't even know what the eligibility requirements are- how would you even know?

I know the eligibility requirements, it is your vaunted court that apparently doesnt as they cant even get the section of the Constitution right.

and bizarrely it uses a phrase that its own footnotes say wasn't even used in Wong, But that is no matter as this court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on those eligibility requirements anyway.

You are indeed a true Birther- impervious to the facts.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

"natural born Citizen"

And what did the Indiana Appeals Court say- repeated by every other court?

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

And here is a list of rulings with the same conclusion- which of course- good Birthers will ignore or dismiss- relying instead upon their far greater legal knowledge based upon what they have learned from WND

1. Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency,
2. Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
3. Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
4. Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
5. Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]
6. Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].
7. Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
8. Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
9. Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
10. Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]
11. Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
    There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.