Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There seems to be a willful obfuscation here. Not surprising. If a person is not born on American soil or outposts; they are not born on American soil or outposts. Ergo, they are not born on American soil or outposts. If a person is born to an American citizen on foreign soil, REGARDLESS of whether that citizen is the mother or father, you folks are arguing that that child, born in another country; ostensibly also raised in another country (being imprinted with patriotism to that culture and not American culture and loyalty), that child is somehow "still eligible" to become president.
The trouble with that analogy is that it violates the intent for why the founding fathers enacted that statute: the requirement for being born on our soil. The intent, as the FF knew, was that a child's formative years cannot be spent being groomed and imprinted to loyalties to another nation. Especially not in the most powerful seat in our nation: POTUS.
Because as you know, you cannot violate the 14th Amendment. If that same child was FATHERED by a US serviceman to an Iranian woman, or a Russian woman, or a North Korean woman, and the child's formative years spent in any of those countries, country of origin can't make that situation any more or less special. They too must be eligible to hold the Oval Office. Canada is benign. But once the precedent is set, you can't pick and choose your favorites.
Ted Cruz holding Office would be one of the most dangerous precedents to set outside Citizens United that I can think of for foreign influence to invade and topple our nation. I wish he had been born here. I really do.
You continue to be a complete moron. Pulling nonsense out of your ass does not equate to law.
Do you think democrats wouldn't challenge his eligibility and that "natural born" will be parsed out exactly in argument as I just put forward, using the 14th which can't say "it's ok for moms to do this but not dads" or..."It's OK when it's Canada but not Iran or Russia"..?
Think again. Those exact points will be used for a democratic win on this challenge. Best to do it before they destroy the election for the GOP..
Do you think democrats wouldn't challenge his eligibility and that "natural born" will be parsed out exactly in argument as I just put forward,
They'll put it forward, they'll be just as wrong as you.
Do you think democrats wouldn't challenge his eligibility and that "natural born" will be parsed out exactly in argument as I just put forward,
They'll put it forward, they'll be just as wrong as you.
You could use the quote or reply function so you don't have to put my words in bold.
They'll put it forward and because of the 14th Amendment's "gender and country of origin" bans on discrimination, the SCOTUS will Find that relaxing the requirement for "natural born" in the case of "his mom was a US citizen" or "it's just Canada" for President is intolerable to the preservation of our Union.
Born citizens don't get naturalized. There is no need.
Do you think democrats wouldn't challenge his eligibility and that "natural born" will be parsed out exactly in argument as I just put forward,
They'll put it forward, they'll be just as wrong as you.
You could use the quote or reply function so you don't have to put my words in bold.
They'll put it forward and because of the 14th Amendment's "gender and country of origin" bans on discrimination, the SCOTUS will Find that relaxing the requirement for "natural born" in the case of "his mom was a US citizen" or "it's just Canada" for President is intolerable to the preservation of our Union.
the SCOTUS will Find that relaxing the requirement for "natural born" in the case of "his mom was a US citizen" or "it's just Canada" for President is intolerable to the preservation of our Union.
When was Cruz naturalized?
Wrong. The US Constitution states that a President must be a natural born citizen of the United States; it does not specify that he be born on US soil.We can't as a nation keep violating the US Constitution, pretending that our founding fathers were "old fashioned kooks" and therefore all their ideas about preserving our Union were too. They fought between themselves and deliberated over and over how this country should be set up to last: not to relax the bedrock of its own laws time and again until everyone was laughing at the Constitution.
We have Obergefell. We have Citizen's United. We have the Judicial now writing special classes for their favorite deviant sex behaviors without permission from the Legislature. We have Justices creating a back door for non-citizens to most keenly affect our elections...citizens who haven't sworn the Oath of allegiance to our country and many of whom own controlling stock in US Corporations...who are our sworn enemies!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I like Ted Cruz. The fact that he was born in Canada makes me sick. I was planning on voting for him but I can't now. Nobody can. He isn't eligible to run for president. We MUST resist the urge to think of the wisdom of our founding fathers as "outdated". They KNEW what they were talking about in setting up the Constitution the way they did. They'd seen it all. Each new generation thinks they're the wisest and that age keeps getting lowered. Now we take orders from our 20 year olds on how marriage will be set up. We take orders from corporations on whether or not our country can be run by foreigners.
This has to stop. Sorry Ted Cruz. I really was looking forward to your candidacy.
Doesn't matter. He wasn't born on US soil. He is a natural citizen of Canada at birth. That is forbidden. If we were talking about Obama being a natural citizen of Kenya at birth, you wouldn't question it. Obama would not have been eligible to be president.
When was Cruz naturalized?
That you will find will be spelled out very clearly for you in the coming SCOTUS challenge. There's a reason the founding fathers made a distinction between "naturalized" and "natural born". And you, as well as every other person on the planet knows that the founding fathers meant "born on US/territory soil". Their intent will be explored to find that conclusion. And of course the whole reason for the inclusion of the specification for JUST POTUS in this way was so that any child's formative years (and innate patriotism) would be spent imprinted on US soil. Otherwise, the Court will find that a US serviceman could sire a child on leave anywhere on earth and by circumventing the intent of the founding fathers, have that child...Abdullah Akbar or Ivan Kasikov be "legally" eligible for POTUS.Wrong. The US Constitution states that a President must be a natural born citizen of the United States; it does not specify that he be born on US soil.
That you will find will be spelled out very clearly for you in the coming SCOTUS challenge. There's a reason the founding fathers made a distinction between "naturalized" and "natural born". And you, as well as every other person on the planet knows that the founding fathers meant "born on US/territory soil". Their intent will be explored to find that conclusion. And of course the whole reason for the inclusion of the specification for JUST POTUS in this way was so that any child's formative years (and innate patriotism) would be spent imprinted on US soil. Otherwise, the Court will find that a US serviceman could sire a child on leave anywhere on earth and by circumventing the intent of the founding fathers, have that child...Abdullah Akbar or Ivan Kasikov be "legally" eligible for POTUS.Wrong. The US Constitution states that a President must be a natural born citizen of the United States; it does not specify that he be born on US soil.
Not a good idea. That's what the Court will find. You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on it.
Yes, like the Pope coming to the US to address Congress. Yes, like that prediction I made. Asshole.Like all your other predictions, genius?
When the Constitution was written there were thousands of cases were women who had been born on US soil had babies on ships and in 'foreign' countries all over the world.That you will find will be spelled out very clearly for you in the coming SCOTUS challenge. There's a reason the founding fathers made a distinction between "naturalized" and "natural born". And you, as well as every other person on the planet knows that the founding fathers meant "born on US/territory soil". Their intent will be explored to find that conclusion. And of course the whole reason for the inclusion of the specification for JUST POTUS in this way was so that any child's formative years (and innate patriotism) would be spent imprinted on US soil. Otherwise, the Court will find that a US serviceman could sire a child on leave anywhere on earth and by circumventing the intent of the founding fathers, have that child...Abdullah Akbar or Ivan Kasikov be "legally" eligible for POTUS.Wrong. The US Constitution states that a President must be a natural born citizen of the United States; it does not specify that he be born on US soil.
Not a good idea. That's what the Court will find. You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on it.
Military deployments where both parents are Americans, yeah. But not where one of them is a foreigner and that child is registered as a natural born citizen of another country....sorry. If they renounced and naturalized here, they could run for Senator's seat, or Congressional post. Just not POTUS.When the Constitution was written there were thousands of cases were women who had been born on US soil had babies on ships and in 'foreign' countries all over the world.....It was common for wives of American ship's officers to sail with their husbands all over the world. The framers of the Constitution intended for the baby to be an American citizen wherever the baby was born.
When the Constitution was written the framers wanted to make sure every baby born to an American mother wherever in the world, would automatically be an American citizen. That was their intent.That's what happened and that's what is still happening. Period.Military deployments where both parents are Americans, yeah. But not where one of them is a foreigner and that child is registered as a natural born citizen of another country....sorry. If they renounced and naturalized here, they could run for Senator's seat, or Congressional post. Just not POTUS.When the Constitution was written there were thousands of cases were women who had been born on US soil had babies on ships and in 'foreign' countries all over the world.....It was common for wives of American ship's officers to sail with their husbands all over the world. The framers of the Constitution intended for the baby to be an American citizen wherever the baby was born.
And ran for president...When the Constitution was written the framers wanted to make sure every baby born to an American mother wherever in the world, would automatically be an American citizen. That was their intent.That's what happened and that's what is still happening. Period.Military deployments where both parents are Americans, yeah. But not where one of them is a foreigner and that child is registered as a natural born citizen of another country....sorry. If they renounced and naturalized here, they could run for Senator's seat, or Congressional post. Just not POTUS.When the Constitution was written there were thousands of cases were women who had been born on US soil had babies on ships and in 'foreign' countries all over the world.....It was common for wives of American ship's officers to sail with their husbands all over the world. The framers of the Constitution intended for the baby to be an American citizen wherever the baby was born.
Forget the bullshit lie that if the baby "renounces" their US citizenship and is therefore "naturalized" they can't be President.
There have been many court cases where a person born to an American citizen in a 'foreign' country when their parents "renounced" the baby's American citizenship where the person has gone to court and sued their parents and won because the parent/s did not have the legal right to unilaterally decide the baby's citizenship.
Doesn't matter. He wasn't born on US soil. He is a natural citizen of Canada at birth. That is forbidden. If we were talking about Obama being a natural citizen of Kenya at birth, you wouldn't question it. Obama would not have been eligible to be president.When was Cruz naturalized?
I don't think Cruz is eligible to run for president. imo
Doesn't matter. He wasn't born on US soil. He is a natural citizen of Canada at birth. That is forbidden. If we were talking about Obama being a natural citizen of Kenya at birth, you wouldn't question it. Obama would not have been eligible to be president.When was Cruz naturalized?
That you will find will be spelled out very clearly for you in the coming SCOTUS challenge. There's a reason the founding fathers made a distinction between "naturalized" and "natural born". And you, as well as every other person on the planet knows that the founding fathers meant "born on US/territory soil". Their intent will be explored to find that conclusion. And of course the whole reason for the inclusion of the specification for JUST POTUS in this way was so that any child's formative years (and innate patriotism) would be spent imprinted on US soil. Otherwise, the Court will find that a US serviceman could sire a child on leave anywhere on earth and by circumventing the intent of the founding fathers, have that child...Abdullah Akbar or Ivan Kasikov be "legally" eligible for POTUS.Wrong. The US Constitution states that a President must be a natural born citizen of the United States; it does not specify that he be born on US soil.
Not a good idea. That's what the Court will find. You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on it.
