Constitutional Eligibility And Divided Loyalties: Why Ted Cruz Can't Become President

[Skylar]

The article is right. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. The facts of that are clear.

If you're a citizen at birth, you're a natural born citizen. There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind.

 

[Kosh]

The article is right. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. The facts of that are clear.

If you're a citizen at birth, you're a natural born citizen. There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind.

The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

Is Ted Cruz born in Canada eligible to run for president PolitiFact

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Cruz is the child of naturalized citizens or citizens from birth, then it matters not where Cruz was born. He is eligible per the Constitution.

 

[Skylar]

The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

Is Ted Cruz born in Canada eligible to run for president PolitiFact

Are you agreeing with me?

 

[Kosh]

The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

Is Ted Cruz born in Canada eligible to run for president PolitiFact

Are you agreeing with me?

Showing the facts do not fit your comments..

 

[Skylar]

The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

Is Ted Cruz born in Canada eligible to run for president PolitiFact

Are you agreeing with me?

Showing the facts do not fit your comments..

The 'facts' that you posting say what I do. That natural born citizenship is citizenship at birth. So we agree?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kosh, I am being actually quite pleasant as I ask this, "What are you drinking tonight, because you are stranger than usual, and the usual is strange enough."

 

[Kosh]

The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

Is Ted Cruz born in Canada eligible to run for president PolitiFact

Are you agreeing with me?

Showing the facts do not fit your comments..

The 'facts' that you posting say what I do. That natural born citizenship is citizenship at birth. So we agree?

Oh my so wrong in just a few posts:

"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."

Again showing the facts to not fit your claims. Then you lie about what you posted.

Thus, proving my earlier comments..

Going to admit you are wrong?

 

[Kosh]

Kosh, I am being actually quite pleasant as I ask this, "What are you drinking tonight, because you are stranger than usual, and the usual is strange enough."

Oh my the irony meter for the far left is off the scale tonight!

More far left delusions not based in reality..

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The article is right. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. The facts of that are clear.

If you're a citizen at birth, you're a natural born citizen. There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind.

Wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

And finally. A letter to George Washington from the first chief justice of the Supreme Court John Jay during framing the Constitutions presidential qualifications saying it would be wise to have a natural born citizen as the command and chief of the armies.

 

[Skylar]

Kosh, I am being actually quite pleasant as I ask this, "What are you drinking tonight, because you are stranger than usual, and the usual is strange enough."

Yeah, he's telling me I'm wrong...and then posts my own argument to refute my argument.

The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

Is Ted Cruz born in Canada eligible to run for president PolitiFact

Are you agreeing with me?

Showing the facts do not fit your comments..

The 'facts' that you posting say what I do. That natural born citizenship is citizenship at birth. So we agree?

Oh my so wrong in just a few posts:

"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."

Again showing the facts to not fit your claims. Then you lie about what you posted.

Thus, proving my earlier comments..

Going to admit you are wrong?

Are you okay? The post you just quoted said 'natural born (citizen at birth). And you've attempted to correct me by telling me that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.

We're agreeing, buddy. Are you alright?

 

[Vigilante]

Apparently Cruz IS ABLE to be a presidential candidate according to this Constitutional scholar who explains NATURAL BORN!

Constitutional Scholar With Impeccable Credentials Explains What A True Natural Born Citizen Is US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Kosh]

Kosh, I am being actually quite pleasant as I ask this, "What are you drinking tonight, because you are stranger than usual, and the usual is strange enough."

Yeah, he's telling me I'm wrong...and then posts my own argument to refute my argument.

The consensus was that someone is a "natural born" citizen if they have citizenship at birth and don’t have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen.

Is Ted Cruz born in Canada eligible to run for president PolitiFact

Are you agreeing with me?

Showing the facts do not fit your comments..

The 'facts' that you posting say what I do. That natural born citizenship is citizenship at birth. So we agree?

Oh my so wrong in just a few posts:

"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."

Again showing the facts to not fit your claims. Then you lie about what you posted.

Thus, proving my earlier comments..

Going to admit you are wrong?

Are you okay? The post you just quoted said 'natural born (citizen at birth). And you've attempted to correct me by telling me that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.

We're agreeing, buddy. Are you alright?

Yep! You guessed it, the far left lies and can not admit they are wrong!

Once again your comments:

"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."

Sorry the facts to fit your comments, even if you want to back pedal and try and change it..

Just like you can keep your doctor..

Going to admit you were wrong? Last chance!!!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The reasons are very simple.


Read the article and pay attention using common sense.
Reality Check Constitutional Eligibility Divided Loyalties Need To Obey The Constitution - Birther Report Obama Release Your Records

/\ Stupid Mcmuddles waxing dull on concepts about which he has not the slightest clue.

Now that's entertainment.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

The courts have recognized that being born to two US parents in the US is definitely natural born citizenship. But they've never said that those born outside the US to US parents aren't natural born. Check out Minor v. Happersett.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

The courts didn't determine that ONLY those born to US Parents in the US are natural born citizens. It says they definitely are. And for the others, it hasn't been explicitly solved. You are saying its exclusively children of two us parents in the US. And the courts have never said this.

You have. Citing yourself.

Wong Kim Ark heavily cites English Common Law in its interpretations, which uses the 'born in the realm' standard. If you're born under the King's jurisdiction, you're a natural born subject of the king. Even if your parents are aliens.

And the US law has only two classes of citizens: citizen at birth and naturalized citizens. Since natural born citizens clearly aren't naturalized, that leaves only citizens at birth under which they could fall under our current law. There's no third type of citizenship recognized by our laws.

Remember, you've never actually read any of the cases you've cited, Steve. You're copying and pasting pages from conspiracy websites without fact checking anything. Exactly as you did with Birther Report. And your assessment of accuracy from these sources is essentially worthless, as you don't fact check anything. You simply repeat it.

And you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Yep! You guessed it, the far left lies and can not admit they are wrong!

Once again your comments:

"There's natural born (citizen at birth) and naturalized (citizen after birth). There is no third kind."

Sorry the facts to fit your comments, even if you want to back pedal and try and change it..

Just like you can keep your doctor..

Going to admit you were wrong? Last chance!!!

The part you highlighted was for naturalized citizens. The part highlighted by me....is for natural born. Natural born citizens are citizens at birth. Naturalized citizens are citizens after birth. Your claim is that natural born citizens are citizens at birth.

Um, so we agree?

 

[Syriusly]

Here is someone who disagrees with this premise.

Defining Natural Born Citizen IVN.us

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Sen. Cruz is a natural born citizen and thus meets the qualifications to run for President if he decided to do so. This also does one more thing, as well. In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his US mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural born citizen.

Personally, I would love to see Cruz as the GOP candidate in 2016. He would represent their values perfectly.

A lie. Even if he was born in Kenya he would not have been born a natural born Citizen. And not even a Citizen. Due to the immigration laws in 1961, his mom was too young to give him citizenship. She was 18 at his birth but needed to be 19. She was some 3 months shy of her 19th birthday in November to be able to pass citizenship to him at his birth.

And yet he was born a citizen. Which makes him a natural born citizen.

You can argue about how many angels are on a pinhead, but it doesn't matter.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.

And you still can't stand the idea of a black man being President.

 

[Kosh]

Wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

The courts have recognized that being born to two US parents in the US is definitely natural born citizenship. But they've never said that those born outside the US to US parents aren't natural born. Check out Minor v. Happersett.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

The courts didn't determine that ONLY those born to US Parents in the US are natural born citizens. It says they definitely are. And for the others, it hasn't been explicitly solved. You are saying its exclusively children of two us parents in the US. And the courts have never said this.

You have. Citing yourself.

Wong Kim Ark heavily cites English Common Law in its interpretations, which uses the 'born in the realm' standard. If you're born under the King's jurisdiction, you're a natural born subject of the king. Even if your parents are aliens.

And the US law has only two classes of citizens: citizen at birth and naturalized citizens. Since natural born citizens clearly aren't naturalized, that leaves only citizens at birth under which they could fall under our current law. There's no third type of citizenship recognized by our laws.

Remember, you've never actually read any of the cases you've cited, Steve. You're copying and pasting pages from conspiracy websites without fact checking anything. Exactly as you did with Birther Report. And your assessment of accuracy from these sources is essentially worthless, as you don't fact check anything. You simply repeat it.

And you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh my the far left loves to post false information..

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote.

Minor v. Happersett - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Once again showing that the far left will post anything even it has nothing to do with what they are talking about!

SCOTUS has never ruled on such a thing for the presidency of the United States..

Once again you were wrong! Are you going to own up to it?

 

[Vigilante]

Can the president be born out of the US

 

[Skylar]

The reasons are very simple.


Read the article and pay attention using common sense.
Reality Check Constitutional Eligibility Divided Loyalties Need To Obey The Constitution - Birther Report Obama Release Your Records

/\ Stupid Mcmuddles waxing dull on concepts about which he has not the slightest clue.

Now that's entertainment.

Steven doesn't actually research...anything. He just apes whatever conspiracy websites tell him to think. Which is why his assessment of 'accuracy' is so worthless. He doesn't check.

For example, his source 'Birther Report' which he insisted was 'all true' insists that Vattel's Law of Nations was where the Foundres got their definition of natural born citizen. Problem is.....the first time an English translation of the Law of Nations even used the word 'natural born citizen' was in 1797.....10 years after the constitution was written. And the word that the 1797 edition translates as 'natural born citizen' is 'indigenes'. Which means indigenous. Not 'natural born citizen'. The 1797 was 10 years too late....and got the translation wrong.

Either Steve already knew that and lied about the content of Birther Report. Or he never bothered to check the accuracy of anything. Making his claim that it was 'all true' meaningless babble. Either way, wow.