is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh that's mighty white of ya. But I get the sense is that you're offering that courtesy, so that you can rationalize the absurdity that YOU 'CHOOSE" to BELIEVE.

Dr. Fukino's testimony would be accepted in any court as expert testimony by an eyewitness.

SPECIFICALLY... What are the elements essential to "Dr, Fukino's" expertise?

(Reader, you're going to see a bout of reticence suddenly strike the above cited contributor. In that the good Doctor has no 'expertise' in the relevant issues.)

The 'good doctor' was the top official in charge of Hawaii birth records-

I didn't ask what job the Dr. was working at. I asked what expertise he had in the discerning of valid and true records from obviously forged records?

Clearly you have no evidence that the Dr. has any such expertise, which, sadly for you and your assertion citing it as an expert, refutes such as your assertion has no means to tell anyone if the document it is real or fake.

But how cool would it be if you have ANY EVIDENCE, in reason or fact, which might have in ANY WAY supported your hope for change?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one need only:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

 

[Toro]

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one need only:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

Or put them on Ignore when you get your ass kicked by them, eh PubliusInfinitum?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh that's mighty white of ya. But I get the sense is that you're offering that courtesy, so that you can rationalize the absurdity that YOU 'CHOOSE" to BELIEVE.

Dr. Fukino's testimony would be accepted in any court as expert testimony by an eyewitness.

SPECIFICALLY... What are the elements essential to "Dr, Fukino's" expertise?

(Reader, you're going to see a bout of reticence suddenly strike the above cited contributor. In that the good Doctor has no 'expertise' in the relevant issues.)

The 'good doctor' was the top official in charge of Hawaii birth records-

I didn't ask what job the Dr. was working at. I asked what expertise he had in the discerning of valid and true records from obviously forged records?

You can ask whatever wierdass questions you want.

Dr. Fukino is an expert witness on Hawaii birth certificates- and her official statements are official statements by the State of Hawaii.

She specifically confirmed that Barack Obama's birth records are on file, and that he was born in Hawaii.

And unlike all the fake experts Birthers bloviate about- she not only has expertise- she has seen the actual documents.

As did of course the late Ms. Fuddy and also of course Alvin Onaka

But of course Birthers don't believe them.

Birthers find convicted conmen and used car salemen much more convincing.

 

[Syriusly]

Reader, do you see how easy this is?

To defeat a Leftist in debate, one need only:
.

In your case all you have to do is convince yourself that every ass whooping you take is you brutally attacking that switch with your ass.

 

[HenryBHough]

Bullshit. Any court decisions about "natural born citizens" are completely relevant since that is a requirement for a presidential candidate to be eligible for the office.

Jeez, I must have slept through a revolution. When DID the Constitution suddenly become once again meaningful?

 

[Faun]

1- Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

You're such a fucking imbecile that your cobbled definition of natural born citizen excludes all humans.

 

[Faun]

Bullshit. Any court decisions about "natural born citizens" are completely relevant since that is a requirement for a presidential candidate to be eligible for the office.

Jeez, I must have slept through a revolution. When DID the Constitution suddenly become once again meaningful?

Go back to sleep. It never ceased being meaningful.

 

[Skylar]

you keep saying "follows place of birth" as if that helps your case in favor of Cruz?????....he was born in Canada!

Directly, it doesn't help Cruz in the slightest. Nor is it the basis of my argument of the eligibility of Cruz.

That would be the Naturalization Act of 1790. Which recognized that the children of US citizens born outside the US were natural born. This act demonstrated that 'natural born' status is subject to US statutory law, and can be defined legislatively.

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

Cruz was born under the queen...makes him a British subject then in your view???

Oh, Cruz is clearly a natural born Canadian. But he's also a natural born US citizen. And its the latter designation that relates immediately to his eligibility to be president.

I dont see how you can keep saying naturalization is natural born

I've said no such thing. In fact, I've said quite the opposite:

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born.

A citizen at birth is not 'naturalized'.

....if the naturalization act of 1790 said that....it was wrong....probably just a mistake in wording.....regardless....they didn't have the ability to change the Constitution by legislation.

Says you. Yet 8 of the 11 members of the committee on eligibility requirements for the President in the Constitutional convention were members of the first congress, which passed the 1790 Naturalization Act.

They never objected to extending natural born status to those born outside the US to US parents.

I don't consider you citing you to be an authoritative source on the 'will of the founders'.

and quit up "follows place of birth" then .....it hurts your own argument.

Not at all. As the English common law definition of natural born has no effect on later legislative acts that extended the meaning of natural born. My argument is as simple as 'before and after'.

and this is the last thing I will say on the subject to you...you have proven yourself impervious to logic

Says you, citing you. And your source kinda sucks.

there is a 3rd way ....at least if you insist on mutating the word naturalization...or words natural born....automatic naturalization at birth to us citizens abroad.

Nope. You simply suck at paraphrasing. Here's the same sentence that has profoundly confused you 3 times. Try actually reading it this time:

"Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born) and citizens after birth (naturalized). There is no third type. Cruz was a citizen at birth and is thus natural born."

There's no such thing as 'naturalization at birth'. You made that up. And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

just because 8 of 11 were there does not mean they didnt change their minds......

Its a far better indication of their intent than you pretending to be the founders. And the Naturalization Act of 1790 demonstrated that natural born status is subject to statutory law.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1- Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

You're such a fucking imbecile that your cobbled definition of natural born citizen excludes all humans.

Does it?

LOL!

So humanity caused and/or 'made' human physiology wherein two distinct, but complimenting genders join in the natural process designed for procreation?

Wow... now that IS news.

My MY! AREN'T we SOMETHIN'?

Conception is a function of nature; of which humanity, in its entirety is a consequence. Which means that Nature MADE us.

But how cool is it that the same people that claim a RIGHT to MURDER the Pre-born Child, believe that WE created Nature.


Anyone need anything else?

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Lets consult the dictionary:

And when you look up 'natural born', you get this:

Natural born:

1. native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

With native born meaning:

native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Following place of birth.

Which also matches the English Common Law definition, and the definition cited by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark decision. And matches historical precedent with President Chester Arthur, eligible to be president because he was born in the US. Even though his father was Irish-Canadian.

Well that was easy.

 

[Skylar]

1- Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

You're such a fucking imbecile that your cobbled definition of natural born citizen excludes all humans.

Does it?

LOL!

So humanity caused and/or 'made' human physiology wherein two distinct, but complimenting genders join in the natural process designed for procreation?

Wow... now that IS news.

My MY! AREN'T we SOMETHIN'?

Conception is a function of nature; of which humanity, in its entirety is a consequence. Which means that Nature MADE us.

But how cool is it that the same people that claim a RIGHT to MURDER the Pre-born Child, believe that WE created Nature.


Anyone need anything else?

Can we take it from your bizarre and rambling rout to *gay marriage*, that this thread about eligibility to be president didn't work out so well for you?

Your rout is certainly understandable. The dictionary contradicted you on the meaning of natural born. The Supreme Court contradicted you on the meaning of natural born. Historical precedent contradicted you on the meaning of natural born. And English Common Law contradicted you on the meaning of natural born.

So much for your subjective personal opinion. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born)...

Citizen at birth, does not a natural born citizen make. Being a citizen at birth MAY be a Natural Born Citizen or it may not be... and in the majority of instances it is.

But where the citizenship is split, due to one or both parents being a Foreign National, the individual is NOT a natural born citizen.

A Natural Born Citizen is a citizens whose birth was the natural consequence OF Citizenship.

Again... the Reader should recognize that those who are demanding that the highest standard of citizenship be reduced to roughly meaningless... are the same ones demanding that the natural standards of Marriage also be reduced to roughly meaningless.

Notice the trend?

 

[Skylar]

Oh that's mighty white of ya. But I get the sense is that you're offering that courtesy, so that you can rationalize the absurdity that YOU 'CHOOSE" to BELIEVE.

Dr. Fukino's testimony would be accepted in any court as expert testimony by an eyewitness.

SPECIFICALLY... What are the elements essential to "Dr, Fukino's" expertise?

(Reader, you're going to see a bout of reticence suddenly strike the above cited contributor. In that the good Doctor has no 'expertise' in the relevant issues.)

The 'good doctor' was the top official in charge of Hawaii birth records-

I didn't ask what job the Dr. was working at. I asked what expertise he had in the discerning of valid and true records from obviously forged records?

Who says the original vital records are forged? Show me any expert source that indicates that the original vital records are forged.

Laughing.....oh, wait. Its just you, citing you, pretending to be a documents expert now, isn't it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who says the original vital records are forged?

No one... Which means that once again, you're trotting out a straw argument, and in so doing, conceding to the standing point, from which you're deflecting.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Skylar]

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born)...

Citizen at birth, does not a natural born citizen make. Being a citizen at birth MAY be a Natural Born Citizen or it may not be... and in the majority of instances it is.

Says who? Quote your source.

Remember, Keyes.....you may delude yourself into believing you're an indisputable expert on everything from constitutional terms to document forgery. But back in reality, you have no idea what you're talking about. You citing you isn't a source. Its an excuse for one.

So what else have you got?

But where the citizenship is split, due to one or both parents being a Foreign National, the individual is NOT a natural born citizen.

Again, says who? The Dictionary, the Supreme Court, Historical Precedent and English Common Law all cite place of birth as defining natural born status. Explicitly contradicting you.

You disagree. Um.....so what?

Do you have anything but you citing yourself? Um, ever.

 

[Skylar]

The Reader should recognize that the phrase: Natural Born Citizen, is as readily defined today, as it was when the Framers established it as one of the three requirements to hold the office of the President of the US:

Webster's Dictionary, a long established, objective resource, defines the words which comprise this standard as follows:

Natural: As a consequence of the nature of something; existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Born: existing as a result of birth

Citizen: a legally recognized subject or national of a state...

So when we place those concepts together it looks like this: Natural Born Citizen: Citizenship as a consequence of, or caused by the nature of birth by those individuals legally recognized as subjects or nationals of a state; not caused by human acts.

The Presidency is the ONLY office which is held to this standard, as the Presidency is the only office which the Constitution requires to defend the principles intrinsic to the constitution, thus where the President were to be loyal to foreign ideas, he could easily turn the nation from adherence to the Constitution, as we have seen time and again from obama, who was born to a Foreign National and who wrote a book informing the readers of such of his loyalties to the foreign ideas of his Father, over the 'negative rights' he finds in the constitution.

Thus the purpose for the phrase Natural Born Citizen, was to preclude, to the extent possible, the means for individuals with an inherent division of loyalties as a result of the intrinsic influence of a foreign national parent, to sit in the office of the US Presidency.

Thus the requirement was set, to require the President of the United States, singularly to be a citizen, whose citizenship was the natural result of the joining of one male citizen and one female citizen.

What the Left wants you to believe is that the Framers established the requirement that that President of the United States, to merely be a citizen, who happened to be born, naturally, here in the US... Which for all intents and purposes, is roughly that same standard required to hold any Federal office and in no way lends any additional tendency toward promoting any greater alliance to American principle.

Which, is in keeping with the Left's perverse species of reasoning, which has provided us with noteworthy policies as: "The RIGHT to murder pre-born children, claiming such on the lofty moral justification of CHOICE".

LOL! Then there's the policy which requires that Men should marry men, because there is no scientific evidence that human physiology requires that the male is designed to join with the female, thus men joining with men is PERFECTLY NORMAL!

And there's the Economic "SCIENCE!", which says that paying people to NOT WORK, will stimulate those people to seek employment.

The thing to understand is that the Framers set into the law, nearly two and a half centuries ago, that the President of the United States must be a person born from two citizens, one male and one female... who joined together, conceived a child and as a consequence of their union, a new citizen was born.

And that is a threat to the Left on two fronts:

First it shows the Framers recognition of Marriage as being the joining of one man and one woman.

Second, it demonstrates the Framers cognizance that Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principles, is a direct threat to the US Constitution and never MORE a threat than where those ideas are intrinsic to the Person designated to defend those principles and the Constitution which set them as the rules by which the country is to be governed.

And THAT defines obama out of eligibility for the Presidency and deals the Sexually Abnormal out of the Marriage equation.

And look....its ignoring the dictionary again! As the dictionary actually defines 'natural born', specifically and directly.

And when you look up 'natural born', you get this:

Natural born:

1. native-born.

Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

With native born meaning:

native born:

1. born in the place or country indicated:

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Following place of birth.

Which also matches the English Common Law definition, and the definition cited by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark decision. And matches historical precedent with President Chester Arthur, eligible to be president because he was born in the US. Even though his father was Irish-Canadian.

So why would I ignore the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, English Common Law, historical precident with President Chester Arthur, and the Dictionary explicitly defining 'natural born'.....and instead believe you citing yourself?

There is no reason.

 

[Skylar]

Who says the original vital records are forged?

No one... Which means that once again, you're trotting out a straw argument, and in so doing, conceding to the standing point, from which you're deflecting.

So no one says the original vital documents are 'forged'.

Well that was easy.

 

[Skylar]

the castro brothers are finally set "a sail" by the people they have persecuted forever .

they RRRRR.... put into a boat...

but, fidel's great grand daughter is with them, about to give birth...

they make it to the florida coast where that beautiful baby is born...

so in 35 years ?? be president ??

Lets consult the Supreme Court, citing English Common Law:

"The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

There you have it. Even if a kid is born to TWO foreign nationals, natural born status follows place of birth.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Current US law only recognizes citizens at birth (natural born)...

Citizen at birth, does not a natural born citizen make. Being a citizen at birth MAY be a Natural Born Citizen or it may not be... and in the majority of instances it is.

Says who?

Says nature... who formed the underlying concepts intrinsic to the words used to convey the concept...

Again reader, this same contributor also 'feels'; and quite strongly, that rumors which suggest nature designed humanity through two distinct but complimenting genders, wherein the male gender is specifically designed to join with the female gender, for the purpose of procreation and that this design defines Marriage... are simply not true, because sex is not designed for procreation, sex is designed to entertain us.

So, well... you know.