Now is the Right Time for Ted Cruz

[Boss]

Cruz has no chance at breaking the threshold. His best hope is a brokered convention, but if that happens neither Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee.

No, if that happens (and it will) Cruz will be the nominee.

Cruz/Kasich 2016

Why Kasich? Rubio has more delegates

Because the primaries are not over yet and Rubio is out of the race. By the time they get to the convention, Kasich will have more than Rubio and Rubio's delegates will be released on the second ballot.

I'm not convinced he will get any more.

He will because NY is proportional. I think there are 10 more states left that are proportional. He will pick up a few in all those states, but he is running second in NY to Trump.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen.

Please present the date Ted Cruz was naturalized?

After the 5 years he spent in the US after the age of 4. He entered the US on his mothers passport and a Canadian Birth Certificate in 1974, his father was a Cuban Citizen that applied for and was granted Canadian Citizenship in 1974 while he and his mother was still in Canada. His birth wasn't even registered at the US Consul in Calgary, if it were he would have produced a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, instead he has presented his Canadian Birth Certificate. He received a US Passport declaring him a US Citizen when he was 16 for a school trip outside the US to England. A US Passport only states you are either a US National or that you are a US National and a US Citizen, not the you are or aren't a "natural-born citizen".

301(a)(7) 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 ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age" of fourteen years: Provided: That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements" of this paragraph.
(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State for at least five years:
Provided: That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-66/pdf/STATUTE-66-Pg163.pdf section 301(a)(7) and 301 (b).

 

[Preacher]

The nation needs someone like Ted Cruz. We need a real conservative before our nation's sojourn into lawlessness and PC progressive fascism replaces rule of law. For whatever reason there are those on both the left and right who readily accept as fact the proposition that Cruz does not have a chance in hell of winning the general election. This may have been true in the past 2-3 election cycles. But it is not true now.

Ted's biggest hurdle is getting past Trump. Let's assume that he does get past Trump and gets the party nomination. Bernie is not going to get the Dem nomination. However, the more delegates his gets (and he is making significant gains now) the longer he drags this out, meaning Hillary is not going to come out of the primary season unscathed. First, it makes Mrs. Inevitable look silly to have to work to beat a crazy, old, elderly socialist who looks like the scientist from "Rick and Morty". The old coot ought to be in a retirement home waiting to die. Let's face it, Hillary looks like an asshole right now.

More importantly, Bernie has conned a lot of stupid fuckers. MANY of these stupid fuckers he has conned are young. Youngsters are bad about not voting, unlike older Americans. So once Bernie is gone, A LOT of Bernie's supporters are leaving the electorate. They are NOT all, or even mostly, going to stay involved for the sake of supporting Clinton. Likewise with Trump, if he fails to get the nomination then many of his supports are going to bail on the process. However, Trump supporters are older and, therefore, more prone to vote, AND they pretty much unanimously hate Hillary Clinton. They may dislike "Lyin' Ted" now, but come November he won't look so bad when the alternative is Hillary. Where will Bernie's supporters be in November? They will be stoned, in jail, and out of their voting districts in some fucked up, leftist university.

Add to this Hillary's many, many troubles, and you have got a great recipe for a historically low voter turn out among Dems in November. Hillary is establishment, she is a Wall Street whore, she is a confirmed pathological liar, she has zero principals as evidenced by how many times she alters her positions, she sells influence to foreign governments and corporations (uranium anyone?) then launders it through that bogus "Clinton Foundation" bullshit non-profit. Plus... PLUS, she may be facing criminal indictment. Currently there is a cadre of FBI agents trying to bring her down. At the very least she has the investigation hanging over her head. Of course, it is noted that if she survives this it will be used by her as a big victory - she fought the law and she won! The best case scenario for our republic is for this to remain hanging out there until after the election.

The foregoing all points to low voter turnout for Dems. But will Republicans also have low turnout? It will probably be lower than if a Trump is the nominee. Cruz has a personality that can rub people the wrong way. But who cares? I am voting for a man to lead and reinvigorate our constitutional republic. I am not so shallow as to refuse to support him just because I may not personally like him. Honestly, I love Trump. I imagine that back in the day he would get coked up out of his mind and fuck tons of women! Of course, maybe Ted did too. Who knows. The point is that likeability is not important to me when it comes to selecting a President. It should not be important to you either. I am not electing a spouse or a buddy.

Hillary has a ton of electoral votes built in because of the number of morons in places like New York and California who will vote for even an ISIS fighter if he has a "D" beside his name. But she is just such a despicable piece of shit that the young mush brains are probably going to sit this one out. That coupled with the justified abject hatred of anything Clinton on the right and among Trumpies means that this is the year that someone like Cruz could be elected. Do I believe it really will happen? No, not necessarily; not yet. But it COULD happen.

Go ahead and vote for him. No one is stopping you. I will NEVER vote for Cruz. Don't need another cheating,Israel Firster,Free Trade,Fake christian jackass as president.

 

[Boss]

Basically, all you are doing is repeating the opposite of whatever I said. Yes it is--No it isn't--Yes it is--No it isn't! I don't know what you hope to accomplish with that any more than I knew what my baby sister hoped to accomplish back when we were kids. I took the time to explain to you why it's the same thing, eligible to run/ hold office. It's because it would be a disenfranchisement otherwise. You do know what that word means, right?

Being eligible to run on a specific states ballot does not by any means mean he is eligible for office. SMFH

Well, little sis... YES, it does!

As a general rule, courts are not going to disenfranchise the voters. That's what they do in banana republics. You mention that you are "hopeful" it goes to the SCOTUS... well, it won't be heard by SCOTUS. You see-- This is a political question... quite possibly, the ultimate political question. And the SCOTUS has a long-standing rule called the "Political Question Doctrine" where they explain that questions best settled through political process are not their concern... again, because courts aren't in the habit of disenfranchising the voter.

Except the voters aren't being disenfranchised. Birth citizenship is a justifiable question, hence the WKA case regarding child birth to domiciled and resident foreigners. The great thing about the WKA is it also discusses children born out of the jurisdiction of the US. Cruz was born with derived citizenship from his mother via the 1952 INA, he is a Naturalized Citizen, he is not a "natural-born citizen".

Yes, the voters would be disenfranchised if the candidate they voted for is revoked. Wong-Kim is not a political election so it has no relevance here. IF Ted Cruz is NOT a "natural born citizen" then you need to state the date of his naturalization as a US citizen. Because he IS a US citizen or he couldn't be a sitting US Senator. So he is either a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Now, you can think Cruz is not qualified just like a lot of people think Obama is not qualified. Doesn't change anything. Not gonna make a difference. But, you are free to believe that he isn't eligible... and maybe you're right, maybe he isn't... it's not ever going to matter. Courts are rarely ever going to overturn the votes of the citizens. It has never happened before in a presidential election. It's not going to happen now.

It's never happened before in a Presidential election? And here I though Bush V Gore the courts did, silly me. Shame on Gore fore receiving more of the citizens vote. Now, as to a child born out of the jurisdiction of the US being born a citizen, there has never been one that has won the office, therefor there has never been a need to have it go to the courts. As to Obama, he was born in the US to a Citizen Mother and a legal non-immigrant Father. RMFE

It's never happened before in a presidential election. Bush v. Gore was over ballot certification process. It had zero to do with candidate eligibility. Let's clarify... because you seem to have gotten lost here... the courts have often made rulings that contradict the will of the people.... that's not what I said. The courts have never revoked a presidential candidacy on the basis of ineligibility. If I am not mistaken, a case was brought regarding Obama and the court refused to hear it based on the Political Question Doctrine.

Again, people can whoop and holler... get on their soapboxes... hold protest rallies... riot in the streets... whatever cranks your tractor... Cruz is eligible to run, IS running, and CAN serve as president. That isn't going to change. Try to get used to it.

 

[Desperado]

Has the OP understood that Cruz has a Canadian birth certificate and the words "natural born" are not arbitrary qualifiers for POTUS? This issue is going to come up.

and let's not forget about his Cuban Mistress Crisis

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Well, little sis... YES, it does!

Sorry, it simply doesn't, I hate being the bearer of bad news, but when you are shown to be ignorant in the basics of law, then, well, you're ignorance stands out.

Yes, the voters would be disenfranchised if the candidate they voted for is revoked. Wong-Kim is not a political election so it has no relevance here. IF Ted Cruz is NOT a "natural born citizen" then you need to state the date of his naturalization as a US citizen. Because he IS a US citizen or he couldn't be a sitting US Senator. So he is either a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Well, no they wouldn't. WKA is a Citizenship case and is more than relevant. I've linked you to numerous cites, do you not know how to follow a link? Cruz was "naturalized" via derivative citizenship after he was in the US for 5 years before the age of 14 via the 1952 INA.
You really should quit listening to Mark Levin.

It's never happened before in a presidential election. Bush v. Gore was over ballot certification process. It had zero to do with candidate eligibility. Let's clarify... because you seem to have gotten lost here... the courts have often made rulings that contradict the will of the people.... that's not what I said. The courts have never revoked a presidential candidacy on the basis of ineligibility. If I am not mistaken, a case was brought regarding Obama and the court refused to hear it based on the Political Question Doctrine.

Your exact words were: Courts are rarely ever going to overturn the votes of the citizens. It has never happened before in a presidential election. It's not going to happen now. I gave you an instance as to when the courts overturned the votes of the citizens. The only one that seems to be lost is you.

The case brought against Obama was heard via the 9th Circuit, and Taitz lost.

Again, people can whoop and holler... get on their soapboxes... hold protest rallies... riot in the streets... whatever cranks your tractor... Cruz is eligible to run, IS running, and CAN serve as president. That isn't going to change. Try to get used to it.

Cruz is eligible to run, he is not eligible for office.

 

[Avatar4321]

Cruz has no chance at breaking the threshold. His best hope is a brokered convention, but if that happens neither Trump nor Cruz will be the nominee.

No, if that happens (and it will) Cruz will be the nominee.

Cruz/Kasich 2016

Why Kasich? Rubio has more delegates

Because the primaries are not over yet and Rubio is out of the race. By the time they get to the convention, Kasich will have more than Rubio and Rubio's delegates will be released on the second ballot.

I'm not convinced he will get any more.

He will because NY is proportional. I think there are 10 more states left that are proportional. He will pick up a few in all those states, but he is running second in NY to Trump.

Depends on if he breaks the minimum and I think Cruz might do better than expected there.

Side note: Interesting that Hillary is losing new York isn't it?

 

[Vigilante]

Oh my, you mean Cruz ISN'T.....

 

[Avatar4321]

The nation needs someone like Ted Cruz. We need a real conservative before our nation's sojourn into lawlessness and PC progressive fascism replaces rule of law. For whatever reason there are those on both the left and right who readily accept as fact the proposition that Cruz does not have a chance in hell of winning the general election. This may have been true in the past 2-3 election cycles. But it is not true now.

Ted's biggest hurdle is getting past Trump. Let's assume that he does get past Trump and gets the party nomination. Bernie is not going to get the Dem nomination. However, the more delegates his gets (and he is making significant gains now) the longer he drags this out, meaning Hillary is not going to come out of the primary season unscathed. First, it makes Mrs. Inevitable look silly to have to work to beat a crazy, old, elderly socialist who looks like the scientist from "Rick and Morty". The old coot ought to be in a retirement home waiting to die. Let's face it, Hillary looks like an asshole right now.

More importantly, Bernie has conned a lot of stupid fuckers. MANY of these stupid fuckers he has conned are young. Youngsters are bad about not voting, unlike older Americans. So once Bernie is gone, A LOT of Bernie's supporters are leaving the electorate. They are NOT all, or even mostly, going to stay involved for the sake of supporting Clinton. Likewise with Trump, if he fails to get the nomination then many of his supports are going to bail on the process. However, Trump supporters are older and, therefore, more prone to vote, AND they pretty much unanimously hate Hillary Clinton. They may dislike "Lyin' Ted" now, but come November he won't look so bad when the alternative is Hillary. Where will Bernie's supporters be in November? They will be stoned, in jail, and out of their voting districts in some fucked up, leftist university.

Add to this Hillary's many, many troubles, and you have got a great recipe for a historically low voter turn out among Dems in November. Hillary is establishment, she is a Wall Street whore, she is a confirmed pathological liar, she has zero principals as evidenced by how many times she alters her positions, she sells influence to foreign governments and corporations (uranium anyone?) then launders it through that bogus "Clinton Foundation" bullshit non-profit. Plus... PLUS, she may be facing criminal indictment. Currently there is a cadre of FBI agents trying to bring her down. At the very least she has the investigation hanging over her head. Of course, it is noted that if she survives this it will be used by her as a big victory - she fought the law and she won! The best case scenario for our republic is for this to remain hanging out there until after the election.

The foregoing all points to low voter turnout for Dems. But will Republicans also have low turnout? It will probably be lower than if a Trump is the nominee. Cruz has a personality that can rub people the wrong way. But who cares? I am voting for a man to lead and reinvigorate our constitutional republic. I am not so shallow as to refuse to support him just because I may not personally like him. Honestly, I love Trump. I imagine that back in the day he would get coked up out of his mind and fuck tons of women! Of course, maybe Ted did too. Who knows. The point is that likeability is not important to me when it comes to selecting a President. It should not be important to you either. I am not electing a spouse or a buddy.

Hillary has a ton of electoral votes built in because of the number of morons in places like New York and California who will vote for even an ISIS fighter if he has a "D" beside his name. But she is just such a despicable piece of shit that the young mush brains are probably going to sit this one out. That coupled with the justified abject hatred of anything Clinton on the right and among Trumpies means that this is the year that someone like Cruz could be elected. Do I believe it really will happen? No, not necessarily; not yet. But it COULD happen.

Go ahead and vote for him. No one is stopping you. I will NEVER vote for Cruz. Don't need another cheating,Israel Firster,Free Trade,Fake christian jackass as president.

You realize most of those describe trump right?

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, little sis... YES, it does!

Sorry, it simply doesn't, I hate being the bearer of bad news, but when you are shown to be ignorant in the basics of law, then, well, you're ignorance stands out.

Yes, the voters would be disenfranchised if the candidate they voted for is revoked. Wong-Kim is not a political election so it has no relevance here. IF Ted Cruz is NOT a "natural born citizen" then you need to state the date of his naturalization as a US citizen. Because he IS a US citizen or he couldn't be a sitting US Senator. So he is either a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Well, no they wouldn't. WKA is a Citizenship case and is more than relevant. I've linked you to numerous cites, do you not know how to follow a link? Cruz was "naturalized" via derivative citizenship after he was in the US for 5 years before the age of 14 via the 1952 INA.
You really should quit listening to Mark Levin.

It's never happened before in a presidential election. Bush v. Gore was over ballot certification process. It had zero to do with candidate eligibility. Let's clarify... because you seem to have gotten lost here... the courts have often made rulings that contradict the will of the people.... that's not what I said. The courts have never revoked a presidential candidacy on the basis of ineligibility. If I am not mistaken, a case was brought regarding Obama and the court refused to hear it based on the Political Question Doctrine.

Your exact words were: Courts are rarely ever going to overturn the votes of the citizens. It has never happened before in a presidential election. It's not going to happen now. I gave you an instance as to when the courts overturned the votes of the citizens. The only one that seems to be lost is you.

The case brought against Obama was heard via the 9th Circuit, and Taitz lost.

Again, people can whoop and holler... get on their soapboxes... hold protest rallies... riot in the streets... whatever cranks your tractor... Cruz is eligible to run, IS running, and CAN serve as president. That isn't going to change. Try to get used to it.

Cruz is eligible to run, he is not eligible for office.

Every court he has been challenged in disagrees

 

[Desperado]

If came down to Cruz or Clinton I will go third party and vote Libertarian

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Well, little sis... YES, it does!

Sorry, it simply doesn't, I hate being the bearer of bad news, but when you are shown to be ignorant in the basics of law, then, well, you're ignorance stands out.

Yes, the voters would be disenfranchised if the candidate they voted for is revoked. Wong-Kim is not a political election so it has no relevance here. IF Ted Cruz is NOT a "natural born citizen" then you need to state the date of his naturalization as a US citizen. Because he IS a US citizen or he couldn't be a sitting US Senator. So he is either a naturalized citizen or a natural born citizen.

Well, no they wouldn't. WKA is a Citizenship case and is more than relevant. I've linked you to numerous cites, do you not know how to follow a link? Cruz was "naturalized" via derivative citizenship after he was in the US for 5 years before the age of 14 via the 1952 INA.
You really should quit listening to Mark Levin.

It's never happened before in a presidential election. Bush v. Gore was over ballot certification process. It had zero to do with candidate eligibility. Let's clarify... because you seem to have gotten lost here... the courts have often made rulings that contradict the will of the people.... that's not what I said. The courts have never revoked a presidential candidacy on the basis of ineligibility. If I am not mistaken, a case was brought regarding Obama and the court refused to hear it based on the Political Question Doctrine.

Your exact words were: Courts are rarely ever going to overturn the votes of the citizens. It has never happened before in a presidential election. It's not going to happen now. I gave you an instance as to when the courts overturned the votes of the citizens. The only one that seems to be lost is you.

The case brought against Obama was heard via the 9th Circuit, and Taitz lost.

Again, people can whoop and holler... get on their soapboxes... hold protest rallies... riot in the streets... whatever cranks your tractor... Cruz is eligible to run, IS running, and CAN serve as president. That isn't going to change. Try to get used to it.

Cruz is eligible to run, he is not eligible for office.

Every court he has been challenged in disagrees

You might try re-checking that claim, the challenges have been dismissed because of filing issues (late filing), failed delivery of documents to Cruz, etc.

The only case Cruz won was a ballot issue for being allowed on the ballot in Pennsylvania. SMFH Pennsylvania Judge Rules That Ted Cruz is Eligible to Run for President

A Pennsylvania judge has rejected an effort to kick Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz off the state primary ballot, ruling that the Texas senator’s birth outside of the United States doesn’t disqualify him from the ballot under the U.S. Constitution.

 

[kaz]

Obviously when they made the Constitution, they were thinking if they had one kid in the US and another when they were overseas, say in France, the US born one was AOK to be president and the stupid foreign kid, no way. Yeah. The Constitution doesn't say that. His mother was American, end of discussion.

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen. If it wasn't for an INA he wouldn't even be a US Citizen, whether his momma was one or not. During the 1790's the child had to have both parents as US Citizens to be born a citizen outside of the US, not only that but it was limited to white's only.

Again, it was the 1952 INA that granted Cruz citizenship at birth via derivative passing from the mother, otherwise it was all about the father, and Cruz's father wasn't a US Citizen, he was still a Cuban citizen.

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:

The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reenacted in the same words, except in substituting for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents' being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

The provision of that act concerning "the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States," not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized. 2 Kent Com. 51, 52; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; United States v. Kellar, 11 Bissell, 314; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135-177.

But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [p674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that

persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. § 1993.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

So in your mind, when an American citizen has a kid overseas, the Founders thought they couldn't be trusted, the European bastards, fuck them. Obviously what hey would have thought of their own kids. Damn you kid, was in France, and there you were, you International bastard!!!!

Yeah, right, you're pathetic. This message is approved by kaz ...

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Obviously when they made the Constitution, they were thinking if they had one kid in the US and another when they were overseas, say in France, the US born one was AOK to be president and the stupid foreign kid, no way. Yeah. The Constitution doesn't say that. His mother was American, end of discussion.

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen. If it wasn't for an INA he wouldn't even be a US Citizen, whether his momma was one or not. During the 1790's the child had to have both parents as US Citizens to be born a citizen outside of the US, not only that but it was limited to white's only.

Again, it was the 1952 INA that granted Cruz citizenship at birth via derivative passing from the mother, otherwise it was all about the father, and Cruz's father wasn't a US Citizen, he was still a Cuban citizen.

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:

The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reenacted in the same words, except in substituting for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents' being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

The provision of that act concerning "the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States," not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized. 2 Kent Com. 51, 52; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; United States v. Kellar, 11 Bissell, 314; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135-177.

But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [p674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that

persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. § 1993.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

So in your mind, when an American citizen has a kid overseas, the Founders thought they couldn't be trusted, the European bastards, fuck them. Obviously what hey would have thought of their own kids. Damn you kid, was in France, and there you were, you International bastard!!!!

Yeah, right, you're pathetic. This message is approved by kaz ...

I'm sorry, do you not know how to read the WKA case? Do you not understand what INA's actually are and what they do? Do you not comprehend what a Derived Citizen is? Do you not know how to follow links to the actual Govt documents? Wow, I'm pathetic, yet you're the one that can't refute anything I have shown. gofigure.

 

[kaz]

Obviously when they made the Constitution, they were thinking if they had one kid in the US and another when they were overseas, say in France, the US born one was AOK to be president and the stupid foreign kid, no way. Yeah. The Constitution doesn't say that. His mother was American, end of discussion.

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen. If it wasn't for an INA he wouldn't even be a US Citizen, whether his momma was one or not. During the 1790's the child had to have both parents as US Citizens to be born a citizen outside of the US, not only that but it was limited to white's only.

Again, it was the 1952 INA that granted Cruz citizenship at birth via derivative passing from the mother, otherwise it was all about the father, and Cruz's father wasn't a US Citizen, he was still a Cuban citizen.

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:

The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reenacted in the same words, except in substituting for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents' being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

The provision of that act concerning "the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States," not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized. 2 Kent Com. 51, 52; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; United States v. Kellar, 11 Bissell, 314; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135-177.

But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [p674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that

persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. § 1993.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

So in your mind, when an American citizen has a kid overseas, the Founders thought they couldn't be trusted, the European bastards, fuck them. Obviously what hey would have thought of their own kids. Damn you kid, was in France, and there you were, you International bastard!!!!

Yeah, right, you're pathetic. This message is approved by kaz ...

I'm sorry, do you not know how to read the WKA case? Do you not understand what INA's actually are and what they do? Do you not comprehend what a Derived Citizen is? Do you not know how to follow links to the actual Govt documents? Wow, I'm pathetic, yet you're the one that can't refute anything I have shown. gofigure.

Can you translate that into English?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Obviously when they made the Constitution, they were thinking if they had one kid in the US and another when they were overseas, say in France, the US born one was AOK to be president and the stupid foreign kid, no way. Yeah. The Constitution doesn't say that. His mother was American, end of discussion.

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen. If it wasn't for an INA he wouldn't even be a US Citizen, whether his momma was one or not. During the 1790's the child had to have both parents as US Citizens to be born a citizen outside of the US, not only that but it was limited to white's only.

Again, it was the 1952 INA that granted Cruz citizenship at birth via derivative passing from the mother, otherwise it was all about the father, and Cruz's father wasn't a US Citizen, he was still a Cuban citizen.

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:

The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reenacted in the same words, except in substituting for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents' being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

The provision of that act concerning "the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States," not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized. 2 Kent Com. 51, 52; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; United States v. Kellar, 11 Bissell, 314; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135-177.

But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [p674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that

persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. § 1993.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

So in your mind, when an American citizen has a kid overseas, the Founders thought they couldn't be trusted, the European bastards, fuck them. Obviously what hey would have thought of their own kids. Damn you kid, was in France, and there you were, you International bastard!!!!

Yeah, right, you're pathetic. This message is approved by kaz ...

I'm sorry, do you not know how to read the WKA case? Do you not understand what INA's actually are and what they do? Do you not comprehend what a Derived Citizen is? Do you not know how to follow links to the actual Govt documents? Wow, I'm pathetic, yet you're the one that can't refute anything I have shown. gofigure.

Can you translate that into English?

Aren't you cute. SMFH

 

[TheOldSchool]

Obviously when they made the Constitution, they were thinking if they had one kid in the US and another when they were overseas, say in France, the US born one was AOK to be president and the stupid foreign kid, no way. Yeah. The Constitution doesn't say that. His mother was American, end of discussion.

His citizenship was derived, he is not a natural-born citizen. If it wasn't for an INA he wouldn't even be a US Citizen, whether his momma was one or not. During the 1790's the child had to have both parents as US Citizens to be born a citizen outside of the US, not only that but it was limited to white's only.

Again, it was the 1952 INA that granted Cruz citizenship at birth via derivative passing from the mother, otherwise it was all about the father, and Cruz's father wasn't a US Citizen, he was still a Cuban citizen.

By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.

In the act of 1790, the provision as to foreign-born children of American citizens was as follows:

The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been [p673] resident in the United States.

1 Stat. 104. In 1795, this was reenacted in the same words, except in substituting for the words "beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States" the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States." 1 Stat. 415.

In 1802, all former acts were repealed, and the provisions concerning children of citizens were reenacted in this form:

The children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the Government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of their parents' being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States, and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States.

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

The provision of that act concerning "the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States," not being restricted to the children of persons already naturalized, might well be held to include children of persons thereafter to be naturalized. 2 Kent Com. 51, 52; West v. West, 8 Paige, 433; United States v. Kellar, 11 Bissell, 314; Boyd v. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135-177.

But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.

In accordance with his suggestions, it was enacted by the [p674] statute of February 10, 1855, c. 71, that

persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.

10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. § 1993.

It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States. Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.

So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.

Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

So in your mind, when an American citizen has a kid overseas, the Founders thought they couldn't be trusted, the European bastards, fuck them. Obviously what hey would have thought of their own kids. Damn you kid, was in France, and there you were, you International bastard!!!!

Yeah, right, you're pathetic. This message is approved by kaz ...

No evidence has been provided that the woman is Cruz's real mother. Add to that the father is a militant communist who fought for the Castro regime against American interests, and there's plenty of reason for suspicion.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, it simply doesn't, I hate being the bearer of bad news, but when you are shown to be ignorant in the basics of law, then, well, you're ignorance stands out.

But I am not ignorant in the basics of law. Or... LOGIC. If you rule that someone is eligible to run, then you have also ruled they are eligible for what they're running for. It would be kind of self-defeating otherwise. You're not bearing bad news, you're just sounding like someone's little sister who has hurt feelings. If you would like to present a legal argument you need to cite some legal cases and examples. If you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the opposite of whatever I say, then you can go fuck yourself... ain't nobody got time for that.

Well, no they wouldn't. WKA is a Citizenship case and is more than relevant. I've linked you to numerous cites, do you not know how to follow a link? Cruz was "naturalized" via derivative citizenship after he was in the US for 5 years before the age of 14 via the 1952 INA.
You really should quit listening to Mark Levin.

Wrong. He was either naturalized through the Department of Immigration and Naturalization or he is a natural born citizen. And Mark Levin has more legal knowledge in his little toenail than you have in your whole brain.

Your exact words were: Courts are rarely ever going to overturn the votes of the citizens. It has never happened before in a presidential election. It's not going to happen now. I gave you an instance as to when the courts overturned the votes of the citizens. The only one that seems to be lost is you.

Did you ingest lead paint as a child or something? Because you seem to not comprehend context. When I made this comment it was in context of our discussion about candidate eligibility. You did not give an instance regarding candidate eligibility and the example you gave was also not a disenfranchisement of voters. The SCOTUS ruled that the Supreme Court of Florida didn't have the authority to suspend certification of the election.

The case brought against Obama was heard via the 9th Circuit, and Taitz lost.

And it was appealed to the SCOTUS and rejected because of the Political Question Doctrine.

Cruz is eligible to run, he is not eligible for office.

Nonsense. Eligible to run IS eligible to serve. Period.

 

[ZackB]

The nation needs someone like Ted Cruz. We need a real conservative before our nation's sojourn into lawlessness and PC progressive fascism replaces rule of law. For whatever reason there are those on both the left and right who readily accept as fact the proposition that Cruz does not have a chance in hell of winning the general election. This may have been true in the past 2-3 election cycles. But it is not true now.

Ted's biggest hurdle is getting past Trump. Let's assume that he does get past Trump and gets the party nomination. Bernie is not going to get the Dem nomination. However, the more delegates his gets (and he is making significant gains now) the longer he drags this out, meaning Hillary is not going to come out of the primary season unscathed. First, it makes Mrs. Inevitable look silly to have to work to beat a crazy, old, elderly socialist who looks like the scientist from "Rick and Morty". The old coot ought to be in a retirement home waiting to die. Let's face it, Hillary looks like an asshole right now.

More importantly, Bernie has conned a lot of stupid fuckers. MANY of these stupid fuckers he has conned are young. Youngsters are bad about not voting, unlike older Americans. So once Bernie is gone, A LOT of Bernie's supporters are leaving the electorate. They are NOT all, or even mostly, going to stay involved for the sake of supporting Clinton. Likewise with Trump, if he fails to get the nomination then many of his supports are going to bail on the process. However, Trump supporters are older and, therefore, more prone to vote, AND they pretty much unanimously hate Hillary Clinton. They may dislike "Lyin' Ted" now, but come November he won't look so bad when the alternative is Hillary. Where will Bernie's supporters be in November? They will be stoned, in jail, and out of their voting districts in some fucked up, leftist university.

Add to this Hillary's many, many troubles, and you have got a great recipe for a historically low voter turn out among Dems in November. Hillary is establishment, she is a Wall Street whore, she is a confirmed pathological liar, she has zero principals as evidenced by how many times she alters her positions, she sells influence to foreign governments and corporations (uranium anyone?) then launders it through that bogus "Clinton Foundation" bullshit non-profit. Plus... PLUS, she may be facing criminal indictment. Currently there is a cadre of FBI agents trying to bring her down. At the very least she has the investigation hanging over her head. Of course, it is noted that if she survives this it will be used by her as a big victory - she fought the law and she won! The best case scenario for our republic is for this to remain hanging out there until after the election.

The foregoing all points to low voter turnout for Dems. But will Republicans also have low turnout? It will probably be lower than if a Trump is the nominee. Cruz has a personality that can rub people the wrong way. But who cares? I am voting for a man to lead and reinvigorate our constitutional republic. I am not so shallow as to refuse to support him just because I may not personally like him. Honestly, I love Trump. I imagine that back in the day he would get coked up out of his mind and fuck tons of women! Of course, maybe Ted did too. Who knows. The point is that likeability is not important to me when it comes to selecting a President. It should not be important to you either. I am not electing a spouse or a buddy.

Hillary has a ton of electoral votes built in because of the number of morons in places like New York and California who will vote for even an ISIS fighter if he has a "D" beside his name. But she is just such a despicable piece of shit that the young mush brains are probably going to sit this one out. That coupled with the justified abject hatred of anything Clinton on the right and among Trumpies means that this is the year that someone like Cruz could be elected. Do I believe it really will happen? No, not necessarily; not yet. But it COULD happen.

Go ahead and vote for him. No one is stopping you. I will NEVER vote for Cruz. Don't need another cheating,Israel Firster,Free Trade,Fake christian jackass as president.

Did you get off at your Klan rally at St. Mtn.?