is ted cruz eligible to run ??

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And THAT folks, is how THAT is done.

 

[Faun]

The understanding of the Framers would have been English common law, which held anyone born within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom was a British subject -- including foreigners.

The understanding of the Founders, would have been the literal meaning of the words they used.

The problem that you have is that the Framers did not set the Natural Born Citizen standard on Members of Congress, or the Judiciary... did they?

What your reasoning suggest is that the Framers required that all other officers be citizens and the President to be citizen also... and to drive that point home, they required that the President had to be born, naturally.... in the United States. As if there were some alternative to natural child birth in the 18th Century.

However, the problem of that day, which is just as relevant in our time, is that individuals born in the US are often born to foreign nationals... meaning individuals who have been raised and educated upon ideas which are often hostile to the ideas and principles that define America. Such an individual may, as a result, harbor animosity toward the US Constitution, they may be aware of American Principles and simply reject the existence of those, otherwise self evident laws. They may find that the Bill of Rights, is a treatise of 'negative rights', which preclude the government from acting as the benevolent patron that THEIR IDEAS require of governance. Thus where elected by a fit of popular whimsy, such an individual would upon their victory vow to his constituency his intention to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES ...".

Which is not what the US Constitution requires of the President. The Constitution requires the President to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution. And in THAT we see the profound wisdom behind the REASON that John Jay, during the Constitutional Convention wrote President George Washington asking him for a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The higher standard for the Presidency reaches beyond the distinction of simply being born in the United States thus a citizen by birth, by virtue of law... and the naturalized citizen, also a citizen by virtue of law... The Higher Standard speaks to citizenship which comes as a natural consequence OF citizenship.

In THAT the Framers set into practice a standard which precluded, to the extent possible, the potential for a President who would be influenced by foreign ideas hostile to the principles that define American principle; principles which the US Constitution is designed to sustain.

You disagree... but your disagreement, at BEST stands upon common law which DID NOT consider the essential criteria relevant to the US President... given that such was established 500 years prior to the existence of such... and subsequent decisions, regarding the phrase which did not consider the ramifications of the decision ON THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UNIQUE STANDARD SET TO DEFEND THE UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS SET UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus your disagreement is obtuse as it is, irrational.

Because there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. The Framers were fine with all offices except the president being held by a citizen, which could be a foreigner who was naturalized. But for president, they raised the bar to natural born citizen, which again, according to English common law, was anyone born in the country except for the children born of visiting diplomats.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The understanding of the Framers would have been English common law, which held anyone born within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom was a British subject -- including foreigners.

The understanding of the Founders, would have been the literal meaning of the words they used.

The problem that you have is that the Framers did not set the Natural Born Citizen standard on Members of Congress, or the Judiciary... did they?

What your reasoning suggest is that the Framers required that all other officers be citizens and the President to be citizen also... and to drive that point home, they required that the President had to be born, naturally.... in the United States. As if there were some alternative to natural child birth in the 18th Century.

However, the problem of that day, which is just as relevant in our time, is that individuals born in the US are often born to foreign nationals... meaning individuals who have been raised and educated upon ideas which are often hostile to the ideas and principles that define America. Such an individual may, as a result, harbor animosity toward the US Constitution, they may be aware of American Principles and simply reject the existence of those, otherwise self evident laws. They may find that the Bill of Rights, is a treatise of 'negative rights', which preclude the government from acting as the benevolent patron that THEIR IDEAS require of governance. Thus where elected by a fit of popular whimsy, such an individual would upon their victory vow to his constituency his intention to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES ...".

Which is not what the US Constitution requires of the President. The Constitution requires the President to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution. And in THAT we see the profound wisdom behind the REASON that John Jay, during the Constitutional Convention wrote President George Washington asking him for a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The higher standard for the Presidency reaches beyond the distinction of simply being born in the United States thus a citizen by birth, by virtue of law... and the naturalized citizen, also a citizen by virtue of law... The Higher Standard speaks to citizenship which comes as a natural consequence OF citizenship.

In THAT the Framers set into practice a standard which precluded, to the extent possible, the potential for a President who would be influenced by foreign ideas hostile to the principles that define American principle; principles which the US Constitution is designed to sustain.

You disagree... but your disagreement, at BEST stands upon common law which DID NOT consider the essential criteria relevant to the US President... given that such was established 500 years prior to the existence of such... and subsequent decisions, regarding the phrase which did not consider the ramifications of the decision ON THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UNIQUE STANDARD SET TO DEFEND THE UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS SET UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus your disagreement is obtuse as it is, irrational.

Because there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. The Framers were fine with all offices except the president being held by a citizen, which could be a foreigner who was naturalized. But for president, they raised the bar to natural born citizen, which again, according to English common law, was anyone born in the country except for the children born of visiting diplomats.

Yet you define every citizen as a natural born citizen, except the naturalized citizen.

Again the assumption is that the Framers were caught trying to be just a little too artful in their rhetorical flourish, when they could have just stated that no naturalized citizen was eligible.

Or they could have said only those born in the United States...

Instead, as was their way, they chose the term which PERFECTLY STATES THEIR DESIRE, TO RAISE THE STANDARD FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY: A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN; OKA: A Citizen, resulting from CITIZENS.

As it stands, any 35 year old whose parent came to the US 35 years ago, had a child, left and returned to Guatemala, the sent the child back to the US 20 years later, sent him to college on a Foreign exchange grant and he is eligible for the office of El Presidente. With NO KINSHIP TO THE US WHAT SO EVER.

Now you likely feel that scenario improbable, which it is... but it effectively defines the life of one Barry Soetoro, except his mother was a communist porn princess, with wealthy Progressive (Communist) Grandparents living in Hawaii... who being OH SO REBELLIOUS managed to get herself knocked up by an African Foreign Exchange grantee... . (Guess whose comin' to dinner... INDEED!)

How does ANY of that serve the standard at issue, which SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT TO PRECLUDE THE INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN IDEAS, in the office dedicated to protecting the US CONSTITUTION AND THE IDEAS COMMON TO SUCH?

CLUE: (IT DOESN'T. Thus as you define it, the standard is literally LOWERED, NOT RAISED.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

To review:

The understanding of the Founders, would have been: The literal meaning of the words they used.

The problem that you have is that the Framers did not set the Natural Born Citizen standard on Members of Congress, or the Judiciary... did they?

What your reasoning suggest is that the Framers required that all other officers be citizens and the President to be citizen also... and to drive that point home, they required that the President had to be born, naturally.... in the United States. As if there were some alternative to natural child birth in the 18th Century.

However, the problem of that day, which is just as relevant in our time, is that individuals born in the US are often born to foreign nationals... meaning individuals who have been raised and educated upon ideas which are often hostile to the ideas and principles that define America. Such an individual may, as a result, harbor animosity toward the US Constitution, they may be aware of American Principles and simply reject the existence of those, otherwise self evident laws. They may find that the Bill of Rights, is a treatise of 'negative rights', which preclude the government from acting as the benevolent patron that THEIR IDEAS require of governance. Thus where elected by a fit of popular whimsy, such an individual would upon their victory vow to his constituency his intention to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES ...".

Which is not what the US Constitution requires of the President. The Constitution requires the President to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution. And in THAT we see the profound wisdom behind the REASON that John Jay, during the Constitutional Convention wrote President George Washington asking him for a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The higher standard for the Presidency reaches beyond the distinction of simply being born in the United States thus a citizen by birth, by virtue of law... and the naturalized citizen, also a citizen by virtue of law... The Higher Standard speaks to citizenship which comes as a natural consequence OF citizenship.

In THAT the Framers set into practice a standard which precluded, to the extent possible, the potential for a President who would be influenced by foreign ideas hostile to the principles that define American principle; principles which the US Constitution is designed to sustain.

You disagree... but your disagreement, at BEST stands upon common law which DID NOT consider the essential criteria relevant to the US President... given that such was established 500 years prior to the existence of such... and subsequent decisions, regarding the phrase which did not consider the ramifications of the decision ON THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UNIQUE STANDARD SET TO DEFEND THE UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS SET UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus your disagreement is obtuse as it is, irrational.

 

[Faun]

The understanding of the Framers would have been English common law, which held anyone born within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom was a British subject -- including foreigners.

The understanding of the Founders, would have been the literal meaning of the words they used.

The problem that you have is that the Framers did not set the Natural Born Citizen standard on Members of Congress, or the Judiciary... did they?

What your reasoning suggest is that the Framers required that all other officers be citizens and the President to be citizen also... and to drive that point home, they required that the President had to be born, naturally.... in the United States. As if there were some alternative to natural child birth in the 18th Century.

However, the problem of that day, which is just as relevant in our time, is that individuals born in the US are often born to foreign nationals... meaning individuals who have been raised and educated upon ideas which are often hostile to the ideas and principles that define America. Such an individual may, as a result, harbor animosity toward the US Constitution, they may be aware of American Principles and simply reject the existence of those, otherwise self evident laws. They may find that the Bill of Rights, is a treatise of 'negative rights', which preclude the government from acting as the benevolent patron that THEIR IDEAS require of governance. Thus where elected by a fit of popular whimsy, such an individual would upon their victory vow to his constituency his intention to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES ...".

Which is not what the US Constitution requires of the President. The Constitution requires the President to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution. And in THAT we see the profound wisdom behind the REASON that John Jay, during the Constitutional Convention wrote President George Washington asking him for a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The higher standard for the Presidency reaches beyond the distinction of simply being born in the United States thus a citizen by birth, by virtue of law... and the naturalized citizen, also a citizen by virtue of law... The Higher Standard speaks to citizenship which comes as a natural consequence OF citizenship.

In THAT the Framers set into practice a standard which precluded, to the extent possible, the potential for a President who would be influenced by foreign ideas hostile to the principles that define American principle; principles which the US Constitution is designed to sustain.

You disagree... but your disagreement, at BEST stands upon common law which DID NOT consider the essential criteria relevant to the US President... given that such was established 500 years prior to the existence of such... and subsequent decisions, regarding the phrase which did not consider the ramifications of the decision ON THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UNIQUE STANDARD SET TO DEFEND THE UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS SET UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus your disagreement is obtuse as it is, irrational.

Because there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. The Framers were fine with all offices except the president being held by a citizen, which could be a foreigner who was naturalized. But for president, they raised the bar to natural born citizen, which again, according to English common law, was anyone born in the country except for the children born of visiting diplomats.

Yet you define every citizen as a natural born citizen, except the naturalized citizen.

Again the assumption is that the Framers could easily have simply stated that no naturalized citizen was eligible.

They could have said only those born in the United States... yet they chose the term which PERFECTLY STATES THE STANDARD: A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN; OKA: A Citizen resulting from CITIZENS.

As it stands, any 35 year old whose parent came to the US 35 years ago, had a child, left and returned to Guatemala, the sent the child back to the US 20 years later, sent him to college on a Foreign exchange grant and he is eligible for the office of El Presidente. With NO KINSHIP TO THE US WHAT SO EVER.

Now you likely feel that scenario improbable, which it is... but it effectively defines the life of one Barry Soetoro, except his mother was a communist porn princess... who managed to get knocked up by an African Foreign Exchange grantee... .

How does ANY of that serve the standard at issue, which SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT TO PRECLUDE THE INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN IDEAS, in the office dedicated to protecting the US CONSTITUTION AND THE IDEAS COMMON TO SUCH?

CLUE: (IT DOESN'T. Thus as you define it, the standard is literally LOWERED, NOT RAISED.)

I do not define every citizen a natural born citizen. Many are naturalized and do not qualify. Anyone born here is a natural born citizen. Just as anyone born in the UK during our founding was a natural born subject.

 

[washamericom]

The understanding of the Framers would have been English common law, which held anyone born within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom was a British subject -- including foreigners.

The understanding of the Founders, would have been the literal meaning of the words they used.

The problem that you have is that the Framers did not set the Natural Born Citizen standard on Members of Congress, or the Judiciary... did they?

What your reasoning suggest is that the Framers required that all other officers be citizens and the President to be citizen also... and to drive that point home, they required that the President had to be born, naturally.... in the United States. As if there were some alternative to natural child birth in the 18th Century.

However, the problem of that day, which is just as relevant in our time, is that individuals born in the US are often born to foreign nationals... meaning individuals who have been raised and educated upon ideas which are often hostile to the ideas and principles that define America. Such an individual may, as a result, harbor animosity toward the US Constitution, they may be aware of American Principles and simply reject the existence of those, otherwise self evident laws. They may find that the Bill of Rights, is a treatise of 'negative rights', which preclude the government from acting as the benevolent patron that THEIR IDEAS require of governance. Thus where elected by a fit of popular whimsy, such an individual would upon their victory vow to his constituency his intention to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE UNITED STATES ...".

Which is not what the US Constitution requires of the President. The Constitution requires the President to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution. And in THAT we see the profound wisdom behind the REASON that John Jay, during the Constitutional Convention wrote President George Washington asking him for a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The higher standard for the Presidency reaches beyond the distinction of simply being born in the United States thus a citizen by birth, by virtue of law... and the naturalized citizen, also a citizen by virtue of law... The Higher Standard speaks to citizenship which comes as a natural consequence OF citizenship.

In THAT the Framers set into practice a standard which precluded, to the extent possible, the potential for a President who would be influenced by foreign ideas hostile to the principles that define American principle; principles which the US Constitution is designed to sustain.

You disagree... but your disagreement, at BEST stands upon common law which DID NOT consider the essential criteria relevant to the US President... given that such was established 500 years prior to the existence of such... and subsequent decisions, regarding the phrase which did not consider the ramifications of the decision ON THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE UNIQUE STANDARD SET TO DEFEND THE UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS SET UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Thus your disagreement is obtuse as it is, irrational.

Because there is a difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. The Framers were fine with all offices except the president being held by a citizen, which could be a foreigner who was naturalized. But for president, they raised the bar to natural born citizen, which again, according to English common law, was anyone born in the country except for the children born of visiting diplomats.

Yet you define every citizen as a natural born citizen, except the naturalized citizen.

Again the assumption is that the Framers could easily have simply stated that no naturalized citizen was eligible.

They could have said only those born in the United States... yet they chose the term which PERFECTLY STATES THE STANDARD: A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN; OKA: A Citizen resulting from CITIZENS.

As it stands, any 35 year old whose parent came to the US 35 years ago, had a child, left and returned to Guatemala, the sent the child back to the US 20 years later, sent him to college on a Foreign exchange grant and he is eligible for the office of El Presidente. With NO KINSHIP TO THE US WHAT SO EVER.

Now you likely feel that scenario improbable, which it is... but it effectively defines the life of one Barry Soetoro, except his mother was a communist porn princess... who managed to get knocked up by an African Foreign Exchange grantee... .

How does ANY of that serve the standard at issue, which SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT TO PRECLUDE THE INFLUENCE OF FOREIGN IDEAS, in the office dedicated to protecting the US CONSTITUTION AND THE IDEAS COMMON TO SUCH?

CLUE: (IT DOESN'T. Thus as you define it, the standard is literally LOWERED, NOT RAISED.)

I do not define every citizen a natural born citizen. Many are naturalized and do not qualify. Anyone born here is a natural born citizen. Just as anyone born in the UK during our founding was a natural born subject.

back to presidential birth tourism again i see.

 

[kaz]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why is that funny since no one is saying Cruz was not born in Canada?

 

[Faun]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why is that funny since no one is saying Cruz was not born in Canada?

Let's see his mother's birth certificate. Make sure she was American. What's he hiding?

 

[washamericom]

where do you guys get off with this single mother citizen = natural born thing ?

. you all act as if it's (your theory) constitutional., that's ludacris

you all think that whomever gets there first gets to pin the definition

that's one of the few good reasons we have a central federal government, the supreme court has been complacent. obama and the machine knew this coming in.

however the squeaky wheel in this country doesn't just automatically get the constitutional grease. and our supreme court, is bound by duty, just as are the other three major branches of government.

 

[washamericom]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why is that funny since no one is saying Cruz was not born in Canada?

Let's see his mother's birth certificate. Make sure she was American. What's he hiding?

see this is a good example of a liberal acting all birther and shit... sorry faun..i really thought you were a girl.

 

[TheOldSchool]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why is that funny since no one is saying Cruz was not born in Canada?

Let's see his mother's birth certificate. Make sure she was American. What's he hiding?

How hard would it be for their family's buddy Fidel Castro to counterfeit an American birth certificate? I think Cruz might even have to apply for citizenship if he wants to stay in the country!

 

[Faun]

where do you guys get off with this single mother citizen = natural born thing ?

. you all act as if it's (your theory) constitutional., that's ludacris

you all think that whomever gets there first gets to pin the definition

that's one of the few good reasons we have a central federal government, the supreme court has been complacent. obama and the machine knew this coming in.

however the squeaky wheel in this country doesn't just automatically get the constitutional grease. and our supreme court, is bound by duty, just as are the other three major branches of government.

Unless there's a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision, the current definition stands. That definition has permitted no less than two presidents get elected and several other run, all of whom had a parent who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth.

Deal with it.

 

[Faun]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why is that funny since no one is saying Cruz was not born in Canada?

Let's see his mother's birth certificate. Make sure she was American. What's he hiding?

see this is a good example of a liberal acting all birther and shit... sorry faun..i really thought you were a girl.

Wrong again ... this is a good example of a Liberal fucking with rightards.

 

[kaz]

see this is a good example of a liberal acting all birther and shit... sorry faun..i really thought you were a girl.

Wrong again ... this is a good example of a Liberal fucking with rightards.

Yes, screaming like a little girl then doing the same thing you just went hysterical about, this is a good example of that

 

[Faun]

see this is a good example of a liberal acting all birther and shit... sorry faun..i really thought you were a girl.

Wrong again ... this is a good example of a Liberal fucking with rightards.

Yes, screaming like a little girl then doing the same thing you just went hysterical about, this is a good example of that

Lemme guess, you're not bright enough to detect sarcasm either?

 

[washamericom]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why is that funny since no one is saying Cruz was not born in Canada?

Let's see his mother's birth certificate. Make sure she was American. What's he hiding?

How hard would it be for their family's buddy Fidel Castro to counterfeit an American birth certificate? I think Cruz might even have to apply for citizenship if he wants to stay in the country!

what does bill ayers have to do with it ?

 

[washamericom]

where do you guys get off with this single mother citizen = natural born thing ?

. you all act as if it's (your theory) constitutional., that's ludacris

you all think that whomever gets there first gets to pin the definition

that's one of the few good reasons we have a central federal government, the supreme court has been complacent. obama and the machine knew this coming in.

however the squeaky wheel in this country doesn't just automatically get the constitutional grease. and our supreme court, is bound by duty, just as are the other three major branches of government.

Unless there's a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision, the current definition stands. That definition has permitted no less than two presidents get elected and several other run, all of whom had a parent who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth.

Deal with it.

see that sounds like gibberish to me. on this one... i call

& please tell me your argument is not pinned to non binding house and senate resolutions

 

[Faun]

1,125 posts, and still not a SINGLE PERSON has posted a non-photoshopped copy of Ted Cruz's birth certificate!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

Why is that funny since no one is saying Cruz was not born in Canada?

Let's see his mother's birth certificate. Make sure she was American. What's he hiding?

How hard would it be for their family's buddy Fidel Castro to counterfeit an American birth certificate? I think Cruz might even have to apply for citizenship if he wants to stay in the country!

what does bill ayers have to do with it ?

This Bill Ayers...?

 

[kaz]

see this is a good example of a liberal acting all birther and shit... sorry faun..i really thought you were a girl.

Wrong again ... this is a good example of a Liberal fucking with rightards.

Yes, screaming like a little girl then doing the same thing you just went hysterical about, this is a good example of that

Lemme guess, you're not bright enough to detect sarcasm either?

Your typical explanation of a stupid argument, it was "sarcasm"

 

[Faun]

where do you guys get off with this single mother citizen = natural born thing ?

. you all act as if it's (your theory) constitutional., that's ludacris

you all think that whomever gets there first gets to pin the definition

that's one of the few good reasons we have a central federal government, the supreme court has been complacent. obama and the machine knew this coming in.

however the squeaky wheel in this country doesn't just automatically get the constitutional grease. and our supreme court, is bound by duty, just as are the other three major branches of government.

Unless there's a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision, the current definition stands. That definition has permitted no less than two presidents get elected and several other run, all of whom had a parent who was not a U.S. citizen at the time of their birth.

Deal with it.

see that sounds like gibberish to me. on this one... i call

Then have someone explain it to ya.