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

[Skylar]

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.

Cruz didn't say either of those two things. So Democrats probably aren't going to do much with either.

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.

Republicans are often under the bizarre 'what the country wants is a real conservative' mantra. Which just doesn't make sense.

Fringe right conservatives find their most fertile ground among republicans. And even republicans don't want them. Why then would far less conservative moderates and liberals want them? Moderates and liberals making up the majority of the electorate and all.

Its a simple math problem. One that these republicans are cognitively aware of. But one they are emotionally unwilling to accept. So presidential elections are often a demonstration of the accuracy of truthiness.

With 5 of the last 6 votes of the electorate going to Democratic candidates.

 

[washamericom]

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.

hey faun, do a hillary ducking sniper fire gif... awesome.

 

[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.

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.

hey faun, do a hillary ducking sniper fire gif... awesome.

 

[washamericom]

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.

hey faun, do a hillary ducking sniper fire gif... awesome.

random photos - Google Search

toro will explain it.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz.

ON top of that, it doesnt even get the section of the Constitution right.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

hey faun, do a hillary ducking sniper fire gif... awesome.

how come it shows this post as having quoted one of mine? I dont see it in the regular display

 

[washamericom]

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.

hey faun, do a hillary ducking sniper fire gif... awesome.

how come it shows this post as having quoted one of mine? I dont see it in the regular display

you mean in your alerts ?

 

[washamericom]

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.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz.

ON top of that, it doesnt even get the section of the Constitution right.

the obots aren't going to like this.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

 

[washamericom]

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.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

this is like a fellini movie. i thought this thread might get like... fifty hits, at best.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

this is like a fellini movie. i thought this thread might get like... fifty hits, at best.

Just goes to show- Birthers are idiots.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

this is like a fellini movie. i thought this thread might get like... fifty hits, at best.

LOL! Alan Grayson is a loathsome reprobate... who's built up quit a following of people who'd like to stomp his skull into a dark stain in the dirt. That tends to bring a certain level of conviction.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

hey faun, do a hillary ducking sniper fire gif... awesome.

how come it shows this post as having quoted one of mine? I dont see it in the regular display

you mean in your alerts ?

yes

 

[dcraelin]

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.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

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.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

 

[Syriusly]

this is like a fellini movie. i thought this thread might get like... fifty hits, at best.

LOL! Alan Grayson is a loathsome reprobate... who's built up quit a following of people who'd like to stomp his skull into a dark stain in the dirt. That tends to bring a certain level of conviction.

Well then you have something in common with Grayson- do you hang out with him? Or fantasize that you do?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

while I dont consider myself a birther.......none of these cases refutes what the birthers think , which is that Obama was not born in the united states..,,,,, all they do in most cases is say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen.
.

You sure sound like a Birther- you reject every actual legal decision and want to dwell upon irrelevant minutia

Birthers think all sorts of crap- there are some Birthers that believe EVERY single reason that they have been told that Barack Obama could not possibly be eligible- even when they are contradictory- like believing both that he was born in Kenya- AND- that he was not eligible even if born in the United States because he was born a dual citizen.

The cases listed deal with the one peculiar lie of Birthers- that being born in the United States is not sufficient to be a "Natural Born Citizen"- and every one of these courts concluded that being born in the United States(unless you are born to a foreign diplomat) is sufficient- knocking out that particularly peculiar Birther lie.

And finally- every one of the court cases listed say that if you are born in the United States you are a natural born citizen- and since you may not remember this- that is one of the eligibility requirements;

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.

no one disputes he is a citizen,,.....just that he is a citizen eligible to be president.

Im not going to look at all these, my suspicion is that they are all of a quality of the Indiana decision you referenced.

Barack Obama was elected in 2008 and 2012- and the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and Chief Justice Roberts all found him eligible.

So have 11 courts.

Everyone who matters has already weighed in. Now it is just a matter of mocking idiot Birthers.

Like Grayson

And Trump.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

 

[washamericom]

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.

The Indiana case, did not need to touch on citizenship at all, ...and in a footnote acknowledges that Wong says nothing about natural born citizens. It also explicitly says it should not be applied in the case of someone born out of country to one or two US citizens, as is the case with Cruz..

If you are trying to argue that Cruz is not eligible, then the Indiana Court certainly did not rule definitively on his circumstance- but it also certainly left the door open that he could be eligible.

I personally think Cruz is eligible- I personally think that anyone born a citizen of the United States is a natural born citizen at birth- but there is an actual controversy about someone born outside the United States- there is no actual controversy for those born inside the United States.

Will Birthers like Wash continue a Birthin' against Cruz?

Naah.

A few- like Stevie the racist will- because Stevie doesn't believe that anyone but those who pass his white purity test should be President and neither Rubio or Cruz satisfies him.

well depends on what your mean by "actual controversy," I dont know about the legality behind the 'must have citizen parents' idea but in some ways it makes more sense than just being born on US soil.

As in there is no actual legal controversy that anyone born in the United States other than the children of diplomats is a natural born citizen. Hell I was taught that in school by my Conservative civics teacher over 30 years ago. There is not a single civics text books that says otherwise.

There is an actual controversy about those not born in the United States- with actual scholars weighing in on both sides. Wong Kim Ark makes it very clear that anyone born in the United States is by birth a NBC- but there is no court ruling that I am aware of on children born outside the United States.

So there is a legitimate legal controversy- though I think Cruz is eligible- the Constitution references only two types of citizens- and Cruz has never been naturalized- so by process of deduction that makes him the other kind of citizen.

could have all done that without the grandfather clause.