Ted Cruz Natural Born ?

[Skylar]

You know how this works, Viggy: I set the rules, you obey the rules. And if choose not to obey the rules, then you choose to accept the consequences.

And you choose to not learn my hometown. When you're ready to be obedient, I'll be about.

 

[Vigilante]

You know how this works, Viggy: I set the rules, you obey the rules. And if choose not to obey the rules, then you choose to accept the consequences.

And you choose to not learn my hometown. When you're ready to be obedient, I'll be about.

You not only don't set the rules, you have shown everyone just how stupid you are! I know you can't argue against the Mooch video, and we all know that by her admission, the Manchurian muslim was originally from Kenya.... I guess your getting tired of me writing...
What is YOUR HOME COUNTRY....your suppression of reality and your refusal to answer the question, is enough to know you are stalling, and you have no honesty, just another FAGERAL trait, that repeats and repeats!

 

[Skylar]

You know how this works, Viggy: I set the rules, you obey the rules. And if choose not to obey the rules, then you choose to accept the consequences.

And you choose to not learn my hometown. When you're ready to be obedient, I'll be about.

You not only don't set the rules, you have shown everyone just how stupid you are! I know you can't argue against the Mooch video, and we all know that by her admission, the Manchurian muslim was originally from Kenya.... I guess your getting tired of me writing...
What is YOUR HOME COUNTRY....your suppression of reality and your refusal to answer the question, is enough to know you are stalling, and you have no honesty, just another FAGERAL trait, that repeats and repeats!

Of course I set the rules. You're the one coming to me, hat in hand, begging me for information. You've put yourself in a powerless position.

Since I possess the information you want, I have the power. And I've decreed that you have to provide me with something that I want. And I get to set the terms. I've set them: a video of Michelle Obama saying her husband was born in Kenya.

You will either abide the rules obediently, provide what you've been ordered, and receive your reward. Or you will accept the consequences.

And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

 

[Vigilante]

You know how this works, Viggy: I set the rules, you obey the rules. And if choose not to obey the rules, then you choose to accept the consequences.

And you choose to not learn my hometown. When you're ready to be obedient, I'll be about.

You not only don't set the rules, you have shown everyone just how stupid you are! I know you can't argue against the Mooch video, and we all know that by her admission, the Manchurian muslim was originally from Kenya.... I guess your getting tired of me writing...
What is YOUR HOME COUNTRY....your suppression of reality and your refusal to answer the question, is enough to know you are stalling, and you have no honesty, just another FAGERAL trait, that repeats and repeats!

Of course I set the rules. You're the one coming to me, hat in hand, begging me for information. You've put yourself in a powerless position.

Since I possess the information you want, I have the power. And I've decreed that you have to provide me with something that I want. And I get to set the terms. I've set them: a video of Michelle Obama saying her husband was born in Kenya.

You will either abide the rules obediently, provide what you've been ordered, and receive your reward. Or you will accept the consequences.

And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Oh, is THAT what you think?

I'm not your boyfriend, and you wearing black latex and your whip does NOT excite me! You do know where you can put that whip....but don't turn to fast or you'll start breaking things! Perhaps YOU are the grape one!

 

[Skylar]

You've been given the rules. Your only choice is to abide them and receive your reward, or not and earn your consequences.

I define the terms. I decide when those terms have been met.

That's how it is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, The Vig has tore some Leftist ass up in here TONIGHT!

Total devastation.

Reader, you have just witnessed the impressive demonstration of how to stomp what stands for "reasoning" by the Left.

Simply find a Leftist... encourage them to speak and once they do, simply hold them accountable for what they said.

And the next thing ya know, they will be UNABLE to offer an honest answer to a simple question and objective reference material will be DISQUALIFIED from consideration... and before long, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN OFFER A LEGITIMATE OPINION: ARE LEFTISTS WHO SIT BEHIND A BENCH!

Great work Vig... I'm out.

 

[Vigilante]

You've been given the rules. Your only choice is to abide them and receive your reward, or not and earn your consequences.

I define the terms. I decide when those terms have been met.

That's how it is.

Now this little subversive is taking hits of Meth while posting!

 

[Skylar]

You've been given the rules. Your only choice is to abide them and receive your reward, or not and earn your consequences.

I define the terms. I decide when those terms have been met.

That's how it is.

Now this little subversive is taking hits of Meth while posting!

Ms. Obama doesn't say that her husband was born in Kenya in that video.

The terms of our arrangement haven't been met. I'll give you until tomorrow morning to provide what you've been ordered. After that, your consequences are inevitable.

 

[Vigilante]

You've been given the rules. Your only choice is to abide them and receive your reward, or not and earn your consequences.

I define the terms. I decide when those terms have been met.

That's how it is.

Now this little subversive is taking hits of Meth while posting!

Ms. Obama doesn't say that her husband was born in Kenya in that video.

The terms of our arrangement haven't been met. I'll give you until tomorrow morning to provide what you've been ordered. After that, your consequences are inevitable.

Well then what did she say .....

 

[Faun]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Note what it does not say: Born in the United States.

Now IF the Framers intended that the standard for President was to require that one be BORN in the USA... they would have said: "...BORN IN THE US".

But that is NOT what they said, is it?

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

Here: Allow be to again help you demonstrate my point:

What other way could a person NATURALLY be considered a citizen of the United States, except where the individual is born to TWO PARENTS, who are citizens of the relevant nation?

(The Reader should know that she will now either ignore the above challenge, which she does 61% of the time, OR she will repeat the long since discredited drivel that being BORN IN THE US naturally provides that one is a citizen OF the US. Sadly, for her position, such is not the case: EXCEPT where both parents are citizens...

In point of fact, if a child is born in the USA, by LAW the child CAN become a citizen of the US. But such is not always the case. If a child is born to foreign nationals, who happen to be here in the US at the time of the birth, the parents MAY or may not claim US citizenship for the child, which again is a function of US law... but the child would also, quite NATURALLY: BE A CITIZEN OF THE NATION COMMON TO IT'S BIRTH PARENTS! ... thus a DUAL CITIZEN. Who would NATURALLY have split loyalties... and that makes sense, doesn't it? )

Edit:
FTR: 15 minutes and she's yet to respond... proving once again, that I SAY IT HERE AND IT COMES OUT THERE! BE AMAaaaaaZED!

Where can one find that definition?

In the dictionary... allow me to demonstrate:

Natural: occurring as a matter of course and without debate; inevitable

Born: brought into existence

Citizen: person who belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country

So, Natural Born Citizen means:

A person who belongs to a country, without debate, as a matter of course through their being brought into existence.

Cool. So nothing about both parents having to be citizens of the same nation. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Faun]

[
Now you want to talk about Benghazi? Sure.

The mouthy Brit was implying that people do not conspire... so towards offering a belittling refutation, I said this:

And you're taking this stand to defend a person who conspired to setup the entire Firearms manufacturing and distribution business, setting up specific federal policy to sell firearms across the US border terrorists, mass-murderin' drug cartels so that their fellow conspirators in the media could 'report' that the US Firearms business is 'illegally selling weapons over the border to terrorists and mass-murdering drug cartels'? The same conspirator who TOLD THE ENTIRE COUNTRY ... REPEATEDLY: "If you like your plan, you can KEEP your plan!"

Benghazi ... He ADVERTISED a video across the Middle East a WEEK BEFORE the 9-11 Anniversary, then claimed that THAT VIDEO caused a 'riot' where EVERY WITNESS in site, stated IN REAL TIME COMMUNICATION AS THE ATTACK OCCURRED that IT WAS NOT A RIOT, BUT A WELL PLANNED ATTAK BY A CAPABLE FORCE... .

You're huh... LOL! You're claiming that THAT douchebag doesn't CONSPIRE?

ROFLMNAO! ​

Folks, you cannot make this crap up.

What a shame I have to repeat myself, but hopefully, this time you'll understand ... a GOP-led investigation found the story of the video was pushed by our intelligence community. The Obama administration spread it to the public. You get the significance of that coming out of a GOP-led investigation, right? They found that Obama did nothing wrong. GOP-led investigation. #7 out of 8 investigations. How many more investigations you reckon are needed to show a conspiracy on Obama's part?? 10? 20? Throw a number.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys and Vigilante have had the rhetorical heads slammed together so many times tonight, the fools are reeling about drunkenly.

Keys lost the dictionary debate, and Vigilante lost the Obama debate when he could not substantiate his claim Mrs Obama said her husband was born in Kenya.

Birfers, racists, former communists, and social con sovereign citizen weenies. What has the TP come to?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our GOP sub- committee in Congress in Congress cleared Obama on any wrongdoing re: Benghazi.

 

[Skylar]

One can ONLY "BE" a Natural born citizen, where TWO CITIZENS conceive and bear a child, the natural result of which: IS A NEW CITIZEN. If one parent is a foreign national... there is NO MEANS for the child to be a Natural Born Citizen. PERIOD!

Says who?

Says the phrase: Natural Born Citizen.

Note what it does not say: Born in the United States.

Now IF the Framers intended that the standard for President was to require that one be BORN in the USA... they would have said: "...BORN IN THE US".

But that is NOT what they said, is it?

They said "...Natural Born Citizen..." because they required that for a person to qualify for the Presidency, that their citizenship must be the natural result of their BIRTH! And there is ONLY ONE WAY THAT HAPPENS... and that way is that BOTH PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

Here: Allow be to again help you demonstrate my point:

What other way could a person NATURALLY be considered a citizen of the United States, except where the individual is born to TWO PARENTS, who are citizens of the relevant nation?

(The Reader should know that she will now either ignore the above challenge, which she does 61% of the time, OR she will repeat the long since discredited drivel that being BORN IN THE US naturally provides that one is a citizen OF the US. Sadly, for her position, such is not the case: EXCEPT where both parents are citizens...

In point of fact, if a child is born in the USA, by LAW the child CAN become a citizen of the US. But such is not always the case. If a child is born to foreign nationals, who happen to be here in the US at the time of the birth, the parents MAY or may not claim US citizenship for the child, which again is a function of US law... but the child would also, quite NATURALLY: BE A CITIZEN OF THE NATION COMMON TO IT'S BIRTH PARENTS! ... thus a DUAL CITIZEN. Who would NATURALLY have split loyalties... and that makes sense, doesn't it? )

Edit:
FTR: 15 minutes and she's yet to respond... proving once again, that I SAY IT HERE AND IT COMES OUT THERE! BE AMAaaaaaZED!

Where can one find that definition?

In the dictionary... allow me to demonstrate:

Natural: occurring as a matter of course and without debate; inevitable

Born: brought into existence

Citizen: person who belongs to a country and has the rights and protection of that country

So, Natural Born Citizen means:

A person who belongs to a country, without debate, as a matter of course through their being brought into existence.

Cool. So nothing about both parents having to be citizens of the same nation. Thanks for clarifying.

Oh, its so much worse. It turns out that Keyes 'dictionary definition' of natural....was actually a religious book called Worshiping Upside Down and Backwards. ITs the only place on the web where his definition exists:

Natural: 5. occurring as a matter of course and without debate; inevitable

Worshiphing Upside Down: Polluting Worship Versus Loving God.

pg. 319

Worshiping Upsidedown and Backwards - Doris Speiginer Wheeler - Google Books

And when you actually look up 'natural born' in the actual dictionary, you get this:

"Natural Born: .adjective

1. native-born.
2. by virtue of one's nature, qualities, or innate talent:
a natural-born musician.

.Natural born Define Natural born at Dictionary.com

And when you go to Native Born, the first definition provided by the dictionary, you get this:

Native Born: adjective

1. born in the place or country indicated:

a native-born Australian.

Native-born Define Native-born at Dictionary.com

Based on place of birth. Not parentage. Exactly as the SCOTUS cited when citing English Common Law.

So....guess who won't discuss the dictionary anymore? Good ol' Keyes.

 

[Faun]

The phrase at issue is "Natural Born Citizen"... which, despite your subjective need that such be synonymous with Native Born, it is NOT!

Actually, the dictionary does indicate "natural born" is synonymous with "native born." You declaring it's not does not actually alter the dictionary.

 

[Skylar]

The phrase at issue is "Natural Born Citizen"... which, despite your subjective need that such be synonymous with Native Born, it is NOT!

Actually, the dictionary does indicate "natural born" is synonymous with "native born." You declaring it's not does not actually alter the dictionary.

Or the Wong Kim Ark decision that cited English Common Law as necessary to understand constitutional terms....and then cited English Common Law recognizing *place* of birth as defining natural born status. Even for children of two foreign nationals.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

Wong Kim Ark v. US (1898)

And shocker......English Common Law cites place of birth as determining natural born status too. My standard of legal definitions is the law. His is the dictionary. And Keyes is wrong on both counts.

And as birthers everywhere do.....Keyes has abandoned his own standards, abandoned his own argument, and now refuses to discuss the dictionary. Despite the dictionary being his basis of ignoring the USSC and English Common Law.

There's simply no standards to birthers. They'll ignore anything....even their own sources....to cling to this silly, batshit conspiracy. And its one of the dumbest conspiracies in recent memory.

 

[AntiParty]

The Left can only hope this fool and Bush are their top runners. They trashed the smartest in their party for being smart. These are the scraps.

 

[Faun]

4 SUPREME COURT CASES DEFINE4 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN Updated May 25 2012 Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

4 SUPREME COURT CASES DEFINE4 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'(Updated May 25, 2012)

IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
(Oct. 18, 2009) — The Post & Email has in several articles mentioned that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is. Since being a natural born citizen is an objective qualification and requirement of office for the U.S. President, it is important for all U.S. Citizens to undertsand what this term means.

Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written byEmmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents who were citizens of that country.

In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.

Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).

Let take a brief look, now, at each case. For each case I include the link to the full text of the ruling.

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:

Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.

John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.

William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.

Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823

Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.

Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.

Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845

Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’sfather, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.

Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.

The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here.

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

UPDATE: May 25, 2012

In your above article, which is very good, there is one error that you may wish to correct. In the Minor v. Happersett case, you refer to Mrs.Happersett as though she was the plaintiff. This is incorrect. The plaintiff was Virginia Minor. Happersett was the Registrar of Voters. I would appreciate your acknowledgment of my email. Thank you. Bruce O. Mann Attorney at Law 26875 Calle Hermosa, Ste. 1Capistrano Beach, CA 92624

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

CONCLUSION
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

4 Supreme Court Cases define natural born citizen The Post Email

Thanks for that ... but allow me to supply a portion you chose not to include .....

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: 'The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.' Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.

FindLaw Cases and Codes​

 

[Agit8r]

according to the corporate media, "experts" say Cruz is eligible to run for POTUS because he had one parent who was an American national.

I don't know why they couldn't locate these experts when Donald Trump was making his moronic claims... oh, right, because it is the corporate media.

 

[Faun]

As long as the Vigilantes are isolated on the far right away from the mainstream of voters, America is quite safe. He can yuck it up with the Keys and PCs and the other defuncts of our society.

My sentiment exactly ... which ironically enough, you can read in his tagline. The moron actually spreads my word around for me which the forum moderator would not otherwise allow.