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

[Vigilante]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

WND- the Right Wing Propaganda rag says otherwise.

Is Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?

Is he eligible?

I don’t know for sure, but I suspect not – at least not by my understanding of what the founders had in mind when they ratified the Constitution.

Other than Grayson- virtually everyone who questions Cruz's eligibility is a Conservative.

What would you expect from OTHER presidential candidates that are losing big time to Cruz....haven't you figured it out yet?

Trump is the only Republican Candidate who has said that Cruz is ineligible.

LOL- Trump is an asshole and an idiot Birther.

LOLOL! Trump didn't sat Cruz was ineligible, he said he MAY HAVE A PROBLEM... Love the made up bullshit!

 

[Faun]

Sadly, you are too fucking demented.

Here's an example of a brain-dead conservative you're idiotically calling a Republican: Where_r_my_Keys

I never called keys anything, but your LOW 2 digit IQ and mental retardation thinks what it wants to!

You demented bitch, you said those who agree with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are RINO's. That would include @where_are_my_keys. So yes, even though you're too stupid to realize it, you said he is a Republican.

Fucktard, I don't speak for anyone but myself, BUT it seems Grayson, is an asshole for NOT KNOWING Cruz is eligible! Grayson is a congressman, Keys, is just another poster...showing how BRIGHT you are, Pond scum!

You're too stupid to understand what you say, vagisil.

Here are YOUR words again in response to me pointing out the folks agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible....

"Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!​

... and again, @where_are_my_keys believes Cruz is ineligible as Grayson believes.

Even though you are too brain-dead to comprehend this -- you called Where_r_my_Keys a RINO.

And as if you weren't dumb enough to begin with by making that idiotic claim, you turn out to be even dumber by not understanding what you said.

You're dumb AND dumber, all rolled into one.

How's this OCDPAWNED, Keys is a RINO.... Now what do you say?

Of course I didn't read anything that Keys wrote, but put out that Harvard statement AGAIN!

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

 

[Faun]

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

WND- the Right Wing Propaganda rag says otherwise.

Is Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?

Is he eligible?

I don’t know for sure, but I suspect not – at least not by my understanding of what the founders had in mind when they ratified the Constitution.

Other than Grayson- virtually everyone who questions Cruz's eligibility is a Conservative.

What would you expect from OTHER presidential candidates that are losing big time to Cruz....haven't you figured it out yet?

Trump is the only Republican Candidate who has said that Cruz is ineligible.

LOL- Trump is an asshole and an idiot Birther.

LOLOL! Trump didn't sat Cruz was ineligible, he said he MAY HAVE A PROBLEM... Love the made up bullshit!

Trump said to be eligible to be president, you have to be born in the U.S.. How does Cruz qualify by that moronic claim by Trump?

 

[Vigilante]

I never called keys anything, but your LOW 2 digit IQ and mental retardation thinks what it wants to!

You demented bitch, you said those who agree with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are RINO's. That would include @where_are_my_keys. So yes, even though you're too stupid to realize it, you said he is a Republican.

Fucktard, I don't speak for anyone but myself, BUT it seems Grayson, is an asshole for NOT KNOWING Cruz is eligible! Grayson is a congressman, Keys, is just another poster...showing how BRIGHT you are, Pond scum!

You're too stupid to understand what you say, vagisil.

Here are YOUR words again in response to me pointing out the folks agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible....

"Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!​

... and again, @where_are_my_keys believes Cruz is ineligible as Grayson believes.

Even though you are too brain-dead to comprehend this -- you called Where_r_my_Keys a RINO.

And as if you weren't dumb enough to begin with by making that idiotic claim, you turn out to be even dumber by not understanding what you said.

You're dumb AND dumber, all rolled into one.

How's this OCDPAWNED, Keys is a RINO.... Now what do you say?

Of course I didn't read anything that Keys wrote, but put out that Harvard statement AGAIN!

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

 

[Vigilante]

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

WND- the Right Wing Propaganda rag says otherwise.

Is Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?

Is he eligible?

I don’t know for sure, but I suspect not – at least not by my understanding of what the founders had in mind when they ratified the Constitution.

Other than Grayson- virtually everyone who questions Cruz's eligibility is a Conservative.

What would you expect from OTHER presidential candidates that are losing big time to Cruz....haven't you figured it out yet?

Trump is the only Republican Candidate who has said that Cruz is ineligible.

LOL- Trump is an asshole and an idiot Birther.

LOLOL! Trump didn't sat Cruz was ineligible, he said he MAY HAVE A PROBLEM... Love the made up bullshit!

Trump said to be eligible to be president, you have to be born in the U.S.. How does Cruz qualify by that moronic claim by Trump?

If Trump said that he'd be wrong, but isn't as wrong as the Hildebeast LIES over the video of Benghazi!!!! Now LINK to where he said that!

 

[Faun]

You demented bitch, you said those who agree with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are RINO's. That would include @where_are_my_keys. So yes, even though you're too stupid to realize it, you said he is a Republican.

Fucktard, I don't speak for anyone but myself, BUT it seems Grayson, is an asshole for NOT KNOWING Cruz is eligible! Grayson is a congressman, Keys, is just another poster...showing how BRIGHT you are, Pond scum!

You're too stupid to understand what you say, vagisil.

Here are YOUR words again in response to me pointing out the folks agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible....

"Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!​

... and again, @where_are_my_keys believes Cruz is ineligible as Grayson believes.

Even though you are too brain-dead to comprehend this -- you called Where_r_my_Keys a RINO.

And as if you weren't dumb enough to begin with by making that idiotic claim, you turn out to be even dumber by not understanding what you said.

You're dumb AND dumber, all rolled into one.

How's this OCDPAWNED, Keys is a RINO.... Now what do you say?

Of course I didn't read anything that Keys wrote, but put out that Harvard statement AGAIN!

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

 

[Vigilante]

Fucktard, I don't speak for anyone but myself, BUT it seems Grayson, is an asshole for NOT KNOWING Cruz is eligible! Grayson is a congressman, Keys, is just another poster...showing how BRIGHT you are, Pond scum!

You're too stupid to understand what you say, vagisil.

Here are YOUR words again in response to me pointing out the folks agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible....

"Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!​

... and again, @where_are_my_keys believes Cruz is ineligible as Grayson believes.

Even though you are too brain-dead to comprehend this -- you called Where_r_my_Keys a RINO.

And as if you weren't dumb enough to begin with by making that idiotic claim, you turn out to be even dumber by not understanding what you said.

You're dumb AND dumber, all rolled into one.

How's this OCDPAWNED, Keys is a RINO.... Now what do you say?

Of course I didn't read anything that Keys wrote, but put out that Harvard statement AGAIN!

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

 

[Faun]

You're too stupid to understand what you say, vagisil.

Here are YOUR words again in response to me pointing out the folks agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible....

"Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!​

... and again, @where_are_my_keys believes Cruz is ineligible as Grayson believes.

Even though you are too brain-dead to comprehend this -- you called Where_r_my_Keys a RINO.

And as if you weren't dumb enough to begin with by making that idiotic claim, you turn out to be even dumber by not understanding what you said.

You're dumb AND dumber, all rolled into one.

How's this OCDPAWNED, Keys is a RINO.... Now what do you say?

Of course I didn't read anything that Keys wrote, but put out that Harvard statement AGAIN!

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

Nah, I was just waiting for you to blow a gasket, like you just did. Like you always do. I played you like a fiddle and you reacted just as I expected you would -- like the flaming rightwinger imbecile you are.

No, you demented bitch. If you wanna see what a liar looks like, look in the mirror to see the lying fool who actually denied reading "anything" by a poster he then said he doesn't always agree with.

As far as Trump saying an individual has to be born in the U.S. to be eligible.... Here's the link you idiotically called me a liar over not providing because you couldn't wait long enough for me to post it.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate because that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope he was born in the United States. But I want to get rid of the word ‘hope'. I want to know for sure."​

You never learn, vagisil. That's why you lose to me every time. Now you have my permission to fuck off.

 

[Vigilante]

How's this OCDPAWNED, Keys is a RINO.... Now what do you say?

Of course I didn't read anything that Keys wrote, but put out that Harvard statement AGAIN!

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

Nah, I was just waiting for you to blow a gasket, like you just did. Like you always do. I played you like a fiddle and you reacted just as I expected you would -- like the flaming rightwinger imbecile you are.

No, you demented bitch. If you wanna see what a liar looks like, look in the mirror to see the lying fool who actually denied reading "anything" anything by a poster he then said he doesn't always agree with.

As far as Trump saying an individual has to be born in the U.S. to be eligible.... Here's the link you idiotically called me a liar over not providing because you couldn't wait long enough for me to post it.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate because that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope he was born in the United States. But I want to get rid of the word ‘hope'. I want to know for sure."

You never learn, vagisil. That's why you lose to me every time. Now you have my permission to fuck off.​

I tip my hat to you But you're still OCDPawn fixing on the smallest bullshit! Trump was wrong!...But that's shit compared to the Hildebeast LIE on the video!

 

[Syriusly]

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

WND- the Right Wing Propaganda rag says otherwise.

Is Ted Cruz eligible for presidency?

Is he eligible?

I don’t know for sure, but I suspect not – at least not by my understanding of what the founders had in mind when they ratified the Constitution.

Other than Grayson- virtually everyone who questions Cruz's eligibility is a Conservative.

What would you expect from OTHER presidential candidates that are losing big time to Cruz....haven't you figured it out yet?

Trump is the only Republican Candidate who has said that Cruz is ineligible.

LOL- Trump is an asshole and an idiot Birther.

LOLOL! Trump didn't sat Cruz was ineligible, he said he MAY HAVE A PROBLEM... Love the made up bullshit!

In Iowa, where Trump delivered the keynote speech to the Family Leadership Summit — and sparked speculation about a presidential bid of his own — ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked him whether Cruz, who was born in Canada to an American mother, is eligible for the presidency. “Well, if he was born in Canada, perhaps not,” the television host and real-estate magnate responded. “But I’m not sure where he was born.”

Read more at: Trump on Cruz Eligibility: 'Perhaps Not' , by Eliana Johnson, National Review

"Well, he's got, you know, a hurdle that nobody else seems to have at this moment," Trump said in an interview with MyFoxNY, referring to Cruz's Canadian place of birth.

"It's a hurdle and somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada ... if you know ... and when we all studied our history lessons ... you're supposed to be born in this country

Donald Trump goes birther on Ted Cruz

But of course to the hypocritical world of a faux Conservative like you- you give Trump a pass for believing the same thing Grayson does.

What a hypocritical asshole you are.

 

[Syriusly]

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

Nah, I was just waiting for you to blow a gasket, like you just did. Like you always do. I played you like a fiddle and you reacted just as I expected you would -- like the flaming rightwinger imbecile you are.

No, you demented bitch. If you wanna see what a liar looks like, look in the mirror to see the lying fool who actually denied reading "anything" anything by a poster he then said he doesn't always agree with.

As far as Trump saying an individual has to be born in the U.S. to be eligible.... Here's the link you idiotically called me a liar over not providing because you couldn't wait long enough for me to post it.

"To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate because that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you'd have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope he was born in the United States. But I want to get rid of the word ‘hope'. I want to know for sure."

You never learn, vagisil. That's why you lose to me every time. Now you have my permission to fuck off.​

I tip my hat to you But you're still OCDPawn fixing on the smallest bullshit! Trump was wrong!...But that's shit compared to the Hildebeast LIE on the video!

Lets review- you call Grayson an asshole for believing that Cruz is ineligible because he was born in Kenya- and you called any Republican who made that claim a RINO

BUT when you find out Trump said the same thing all you say "Trump was wrong"

Trump is an idiot Birther- like you- and like Grayson.

 

[Syriusly]

You're too stupid to understand what you say, vagisil.

Here are YOUR words again in response to me pointing out the folks agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible....

"Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!​

... and again, @where_are_my_keys believes Cruz is ineligible as Grayson believes.

Even though you are too brain-dead to comprehend this -- you called Where_r_my_Keys a RINO.

And as if you weren't dumb enough to begin with by making that idiotic claim, you turn out to be even dumber by not understanding what you said.

You're dumb AND dumber, all rolled into one.

How's this OCDPAWNED, Keys is a RINO.... Now what do you say?

Of course I didn't read anything that Keys wrote, but put out that Harvard statement AGAIN!

I say you're a fucking retard. But then, you already know that.

I also say you're a proven liar since I've seen you reply to Where_r_my_Keys' posts. So yes, it's an obvious lie when you claim you've never read anything he wrote.

You mean I can agree with KEYS on some things, and NOT others.... And you mean I read EVERYTHING in this thread that Keys wrote, especially when I've been gone all afternoon! I try never to go back and read the bullshit in a thread when there are dozens of posts since I left! You are a fucking NUTCASE!

Only a liar like you would go from saying you "never read anything Keys wrote," to saying you don't agree with everything he said.

And no one gives a flying fuck what you agree with. you moronically claimed those who think Cruz is ineligible are either RINO's or extreme left wingers.

So you DON'T have any LINK to Trump saying you must be born in the United States to be president...So you LIED, like you're TRYING to put on me! Fucking Pond Scum ALWAYS blows iT... So OCDPAWNED, we are waiting for your TRUMP STATEMENT link!

Except of course- he didn't lie- he was correct- and you were the one who said

they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

And Trump believes as Grayson does- so now- do you believe Trump is a Rino Ellitist- or were you the one lying?

Oh hell we know its just that you don't give a damn about the facts or the truth.

If Trump was found in bed with a dead whore, you would end up blaming the whore.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Well, the left has done such a lovely job of muddying the water and confusing people on the subject, that it's going to take some time to clarify the law . . . as usual.

Again, this is really not at all complicated.

Natural born citizen

One may also be a "natural born Citizen" if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.

So how does one's citizenship immediately pass from one's parents, you ask? Also already codified into law, by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, in which Congress is given the power to enact laws regarding citizenship and naturalization:

8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

This is not complicated. Ted Cruz has been a citizen of the United States since his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized as a citizen, because he's been one from the beginning, hence a "natural born citizen".

It's only complicated if you try to make it complicated for some reason.

a so-called "Constitutional Conservative" should know that the section of the Constitution dealing with presidential eligibility is not the same one as quoted above which gives the Congress power to make rules on naturalization.

Constitution of the United States | The Constitution of the United States of America – U.S. Constitution

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

You're having a problem with . . . what, precisely, about my citation?

Let me explain the logic chain of the post, since you seem to have gotten lost in all those words.

Article 2 establishes the requirements for Presidential eligibility, which has been established and noted. It is Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 which gives Congress the power to pass laws (known as the US Code) which define the term "natural-born citizen" in that eligibility through the "uniform Rule of Naturalization", ie. how is citizenship conveyed.

No one ever said the two Constitutional Articles were the same.

YOU implied they are the same, and seem still to be implying that Congress's ability to pass rules of naturalization can effect the presidential eligibility requirements.......

 

[dcraelin]

actually according to your own linked case, in Indiana, Wong does NOT even use the phrase NBC.
z

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

What courts quoted them?................That dont say much for those courts either.............you have yet to state why you think a court that cant even get the section of the Constitution right is worth listening to.

 

[Syriusly]

Wong Kim Ark mentions Natural-Born Citizen 14 times- and mentions Natural Born 44 times.

What the Appeals Court in Indiana did say was this:

View attachment 56304

and this

View attachment 56305

and finally this:

View attachment 56306

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

What courts quoted them?................That dont say much for those courts either.............you have yet to state why you think a court that cant even get the section of the Constitution right is worth listening to.

You have yet to state why I should believe you- someone with apparently no legal training or background- rather than the Judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals- all legal experts- and every single one of the judges- all legal experts- who have cited Ankeny v. Daniels.

The court in Ankeny v. Daniels is authoritative and has actual legal weight.

You are not and do not have any.

 

[Syriusly]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

Let us review:

Grayson thinks Cruz is ineligible because he was not born in the United States.
Trump thinks a person not born in the United States is not eligible.

Waiting for Vigilante to admit that Trump is a RINO elitist and far left pond scum.

 

[Kosh]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

Let us review:

Grayson thinks Cruz is ineligible because he was not born in the United States.
Trump thinks a person not born in the United States is not eligible.

Waiting for Vigilante to admit that Trump is a RINO elitist and far left pond scum.

You are far left pond scum..

 

[dcraelin]

yeah, see, I dont get what theyre saying, first, (well now i cant see your cut -outs) but, at one point they say wong was a citizen but dont use phrase natural born citizen I dont think .......and Id like to see where in Wong it uses that phrase cause the Indiana court, unless I misread it says it isnt in there......but they also, again,get the clause wrong.....and then they out of thin air decide the wording is immaterial?.....yeah I dont think they put alot of thought into it...............

they could decide the case on other grounds and just seem to be babbling in your snippets and footnotes.

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

What courts quoted them?................That dont say much for those courts either.............you have yet to state why you think a court that cant even get the section of the Constitution right is worth listening to.

You have yet to state why I should believe you- someone with apparently no legal training or background- rather than the Judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals- all legal experts- and every single one of the judges- all legal experts- who have cited Ankeny v. Daniels.

The court in Ankeny v. Daniels is authoritative and has actual legal weight.

You are not and do not have any.

well you can listen to me because I, unlike the Indiana court who is paid to do so, got the section of the constitution right.

you have to wonder even if that court didnt deliberately get the section wrong in order that they could slap off what they saw as a pesky inconsequential lawsuit without setting precedent.

There are other parts of the opinion that also point in this direction, misleading statements as to what the Wong case says for instance.

All this after stating near the beginning that the suit was essentially against the wrong people, which was really the basis for the decision, and so other wording is really what I believe they call obiter dictum........... pompous lawyer talk for "bull shit".

 

[Syriusly]

From the HARVARD LAW REVIEW on ELIGIBILITY

[SNIP]There are plenty of serious issues to debate in the upcoming presidential election cycle. The less time spent dealing with specious objections to candidate eligibility, the better. Fortunately, the Constitution is refreshingly clear on these eligibility issues. To serve, an individual must be at least thirty-five years old and a “natural born Citizen.” Thirty-four and a half is not enough and, for better or worse, a naturalized citizen cannot serve. But as Congress has recognized since the Founding, a person born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is generally a U.S. citizen from birth with no need for naturalization. And the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution encompasses all such citizens from birth. Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone (such as Juan McCain) — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.[/SNIP]

On the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”

So what? The only ones agreeing with Grayson that Cruz is ineligible are Conservatives.

Wrong OCDPawned, they are RINO ELITISTS...and the FAR LEFT POND SCUM that believe as that woman beater, Grayson does!

Let us review:

Grayson thinks Cruz is ineligible because he was not born in the United States.
Trump thinks a person not born in the United States is not eligible.

Waiting for Vigilante to admit that Trump is a RINO elitist and far left pond scum.

You are far left pond scum..

You are an asshole.

 

[Syriusly]

Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny v. Daniels are both available online if you want to read what they say- Google worked just fine for me.

But to summarize- the Indiana Appeals Court found that it was clear that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen- exactly what all of those who were born and educated here grew up knowing.

it did not need to "find" that, its opinion gets the section of the Constitution wrong, its opinion is worthless as to eligibility of the president. ....Even though I agree that if you are born here you are a natural born citizen.

Well since numerous courts have cited Ankeny v. Daniels since its decision- and none of have quoted your opinion- I think theirs is certainly more valuable than yours.

What courts quoted them?................That dont say much for those courts either.............you have yet to state why you think a court that cant even get the section of the Constitution right is worth listening to.

You have yet to state why I should believe you- someone with apparently no legal training or background- rather than the Judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals- all legal experts- and every single one of the judges- all legal experts- who have cited Ankeny v. Daniels.

The court in Ankeny v. Daniels is authoritative and has actual legal weight.

You are not and do not have any.

well you can listen to me because I, unlike the Indiana court who is paid to do so, got the section of the constitution right.

you have to wonder even if that court didnt deliberately get the section wrong in order that they could slap off what they saw as a pesky inconsequential lawsuit without setting precedent.

There are other parts of the opinion that also point in this direction, misleading statements as to what the Wong case says for instance.

All this after stating near the beginning that the suit was essentially against the wrong people, which was really the basis for the decision, and so other wording is really what I believe they call obiter dictum........... pompous lawyer talk for "bull shit".

And in the end- Ankeny v. Daniels is being cited in numerous courts- and you aren't.

The authors of Ankeny v. Daniels are actual legal experts- and you aren't.

But hey- believe what you want- its a free country.