Cruz is not elegilble for president

beebobby · Jan 19, 2016

According to Ted Cruz's father's statement, Ted Cruz's parents applied for and received Canadian citizenship before his birth in Alberta. Thus, his mother committed the act of obtaining naturalization of a foreign state, a potentially expatriating act. If this is true, then Ted Cruz is a 100% natural-born citizen of Canada, being born on Canadian soil of 2 naturalized Canadian parents.
In addition, until 1977, Canada required those seeking Canadian citizenship to swear an oath renouncing their allegiance to their previous country. This action, combined with behavior showing the person intended to relinquish his or her U.S. citizenship, has been ruled an expatriating act by U.S. courts. If Ted Cruz's mother obtained Canadian citizenship before 1977, then she swore this oath before a Canadian government official.

davidmcbeth · Jan 19, 2016

beebobby said:
According to Ted Cruz's father's statement, Ted Cruz's parents applied for and received Canadian citizenship before his birth in Alberta. Thus, his mother committed the act of obtaining naturalization of a foreign state, a potentially expatriating act. If this is true, then Ted Cruz is a 100% natural-born citizen of Canada, being born on Canadian soil of 2 naturalized Canadian parents.
In addition, until 1977, Canada required those seeking Canadian citizenship to swear an oath renouncing their allegiance to their previous country. This action, combined with behavior showing the person intended to relinquish his or her U.S. citizenship, has been ruled an expatriating act by U.S. courts. If Ted Cruz's mother obtained Canadian citizenship before 1977, then she swore this oath before a Canadian government official.

He's more eligible to be president of Cuba than the US....

nobama · Jan 19, 2016

rushcreek2 said:
In view of the national disgrace of a 2 term President Barack Obama who apparently no one really can substantiate where he was actually born or even who his parents REALLY WERE.....I will PROUDLY cast my vote in Colorado for Ted Cruz to be the next President of the United States ...if he is the GOP nominee......even though he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States.

Yes,yes,and yes!!!

MAC702 · Jan 19, 2016

rushcreek2 said:
In view of the national disgrace of a 2 term President Barack Obama who apparently no one really can substantiate where he was actually born or even who his parents REALLY WERE.....I will PROUDLY cast my vote in Colorado for Ted Cruz to be the next President of the United States ...if he is the GOP nominee......even though he is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States.

I disagree, completely. The precedent is too egregious.

I would support a Constitutional amendment allowing naturalized citizens, but I will not knowingly support violating the Constitution.

I actually can't believe he went into the race not knowing he was not eligible.

It is unfortunate that we were not able to prove in a US court that Obama was not eligible, but that must be held independent of Cruz' eligibility.

I could not look at Cruz with any respect if he pursues or takes the office now that it has been explained to him. It kinda sucks, but, again, how does a naturalized citizen not know the difference between that and natural-born?

utbagpiper · Jan 19, 2016

MAC702 said:
I could not look at Cruz with any respect if he pursues or takes the office now that it has been explained to him. It kinda sucks, but, again, how does a naturalized citizen not know the difference between that and natural-born?

I've yet to see a citation that says "natural born" requires being born on US soil. Nor have the naysayers made any attempt to refute the citations I've provided to the contrary.

If someone can provide solid evidence that Cruz is a naturalized citizen, rather than a natural born citizen born outside US territory, I'll agree he is ineligible.

What we have here are un-cited, emphatic assertions by a couple members of the forum not well known for their accuracy or reliability in any matter.

If someone doesn't want to vote for Cruz, that is certainly their right. But if someone is going to claim he is constitutionally ineligible, I expect to see some solid citations.

Charles

utbagpiper · Jan 19, 2016

beebobby said:
According to Ted Cruz's father's statement, Ted Cruz's parents applied for and received Canadian citizenship before his birth in Alberta. Thus, his mother committed the act of obtaining naturalization of a foreign state, a potentially expatriating act. If this is true, then Ted Cruz is a 100% natural-born citizen of Canada, being born on Canadian soil of 2 naturalized Canadian parents.
In addition, until 1977, Canada required those seeking Canadian citizenship to swear an oath renouncing their allegiance to their previous country. This action, combined with behavior showing the person intended to relinquish his or her U.S. citizenship, has been ruled an expatriating act by U.S. courts. If Ted Cruz's mother obtained Canadian citizenship before 1977, then she swore this oath before a Canadian government official.

Citation, and documentation, please.

Otherwise, you are no better that those "birthers" you have doubtless spent 7 or so years castigating.

Charles

beebobby · Jan 20, 2016

utbagpiper said:
Citation, and documentation, please.

Otherwise, you are no better that those "birthers" you have doubtless spent 7 or so years castigating.

Charles

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

http://www.examiner.com/article/ted-cruz-must-show-naturalization-papers-to-keep-his-us-senate-seat

http://www.examiner.com/article/proof-that-ted-cruz-did-not-become-a-us-citizen-at-birth

I want to see his FS-240. The original, not a copy.

OC for ME · Jan 20, 2016

beebobby said:
... I want to see his FS-240. The original, not a copy.

Did you see Obama's original BC? Or did you see a copy?

Liberals...

davidmcbeth · Jan 20, 2016

utbagpiper said:
I've yet to see a citation that says "natural born" requires being born on US soil. Nor have the naysayers made any attempt to refute the citations I've provided to the contrary.

If someone can provide solid evidence that Cruz is a naturalized citizen, rather than a natural born citizen born outside US territory, I'll agree he is ineligible.

What we have here are un-cited, emphatic assertions by a couple members of the forum not well known for their accuracy or reliability in any matter.

If someone doesn't want to vote for Cruz, that is certainly their right. But if someone is going to claim he is constitutionally ineligible, I expect to see some solid citations.

Charles

What we really have is folks who think that the term "naturalized citizen" = "citizen".

Is a person born on US soil of foreign parents a "naturalized citizen"? Yes.

Is a person born outside the US of a US citizen (not born on US soil) automatically a citizen? No.

Can the US refuse citizenship to a person born outside of the US where both parents are US citizens? Yes.

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html

"I expect some solid citations" himhuffpuff!

The sun is hot. Need a cite for that?

10 pts for Slytherin

beebobby · Jan 20, 2016

OC for ME said:
Did you see Obama's original BC? Or did you see a copy?

Liberals...

I didn't have to see anything, the State of Hawaii verified it and I believe them.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...obamas-birth-certificate-for-az-sec-of-state/

davidmcbeth · Jan 20, 2016

beebobby said:
I didn't have to see anything, the State of Hawaii verified it and I believe them.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...obamas-birth-certificate-for-az-sec-of-state/

Lets assume that Obummer was not eligible...assume that he was not even a US citizen.

In most states, the time to argue this is during the nominating petition time period. If a person not eligible does not have his petition to be a candidate challenged and he gets on the ballot, that's it. He's on the ballot. If elected, he's elected....there are no legal grounds to remove him.

Just because one is not eligible for office does not mean that one cannot be elected to such an office. It happens more often than people realize.

Congress may have the authority to remove a president from office; it has never been done do to eligibility questions and I could see the executive branch and judicial branch simply ignore such an impeachment result.

It would be fun to watch ... I doubt it would ever happen in my lifetime.

davidmcbeth · Jan 20, 2016

beebobby said:
I didn't have to see anything, the State of Hawaii verified it and I believe them.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...obamas-birth-certificate-for-az-sec-of-state/

I asked Obummer where he was born and he said Hawaii ... I pressed him again asking him how does he remember this, he was just a baby.

Freedom1Man · Jan 20, 2016

utbagpiper said:
I've yet to see a citation that says "natural born" requires being born on US soil. Nor have the naysayers made any attempt to refute the citations I've provided to the contrary.

If someone can provide solid evidence that Cruz is a naturalized citizen, rather than a natural born citizen born outside US territory, I'll agree he is ineligible.

What we have here are un-cited, emphatic assertions by a couple members of the forum not well known for their accuracy or reliability in any matter.

If someone doesn't want to vote for Cruz, that is certainly their right. But if someone is going to claim he is constitutionally ineligible, I expect to see some solid citations.

Charles

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...5200:1452675851:4796220175203919224&__tn__=*s

The following is to help the understanding of the Constitutional provisions of “Natural Born Citizenship”:

“The intent of the law is the force of the law?” In other words, when a legislature introduces a Bill, and then passes it into Law, it is to serve a certain “purpose,” and to achieve that purpose is how the law is to be enforced.

The “intent” or purpose of any law can be found in it’s “legislative notes,” and in the case of Article 2, section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, it is found in “James Madison’s Notes to the Constitutional Convention of 1787,” (published in 1835, upon his death), and other writings of the Framers of the Constitution that attended it. Such as, David Ramsay, who addressed the “natural born citizen” issue in an article published in 1789, which I have posted several times on FaceBook.

According to the Framers, the purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause was to prevent “diplomatic influence through marriage.” To understand this more fully, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, governments were generally monarchies that used marriage diplomatically. Thus changing the course of government through marriage, rather than war. The idea of citizens governing themselves was unheard of, and a threat to the monarchical system. The Founders and Framers realized that there would be most likely an immediate threat to their self-government experiment, and tried to setup blocks to this possibility, diplomatic marriage just being one of them.

Laws can only be changed, or repealed through acts of the legislature of competent jurisdiction. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, by an Amendment to it, according to the provisions of Article 5 of it. The Congress cannot short circuit this requirement by the use of their routine legislative law making powers. The only way the purpose, or intent of the law, can be changed, or altered, in this case, the “natural born citizen” provision of the Constitution, is by an Article 5 Amendment. To my knowledge that has not been attempted or accomplished. Wherefore, until this has occurred, the “natural born citizen” is a citizen that was born of “natural born citizen” parents. The one parent citizenship is counter to the “intent,” or purpose of the law, which is always an intricate part of the law. Without it’s observance, it is like sailing a ship without a rudder, and will remain part of the law until it is properly changed by law, according to the provisions of the law.

This is from a legal researcher that I trust and respect.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

beebobby · Jan 20, 2016

And yet McCain was declared eligible to be President by a non-binding resolution by the Senate. No Constitutional change was enacted.

"In April, the Senate approved a nonbinding resolution declaring that Mr. McCain is eligible to be president. Its sponsors said the nation’s founders would have never intended to deny the presidency to the offspring of military personnel stationed out of the country."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=0

OC for ME · Jan 20, 2016

beebobby said:
I didn't have to see anything, the State of Hawaii verified it and I believe them.

A liberal using the Blaze, of all "sources", to validate their position...too funny.

Anyway, the federal government blamed the Bengazi attack on a You-tuber video that some believe shows Islam in a negative light...do you believe them too? Because we all know that governments would never lie.

beebobby · Jan 20, 2016

OC for ME said:
Did you see Obama's original BC? Or did you see a copy?

Liberals...

Didn't need to. Just like I don't need to see the original Constitution to know it exists.

beebobby · Jan 20, 2016

OC for ME said:
A liberal using the Blaze, of all "sources", to validate their position...too funny.

Anyway, the federal government blamed the Bengazi attack on a You-tuber video that some believe shows Islam in a negative light...do you believe them too? Because we all know that governments would never lie.

I figured I would use a source you are familiar with. Do you consider the Blaze an accurate source of information?
It wasn't a "you tube video" although it did make it there. It was a highly promoted derogatory hit piece designed to incite muslims. A recruitment tool for violence. Were there any other locations in that region that had riots due to the video?
The CIA wrote the talking points and provided the intel that Susan Rice used that weekend. Why should she doubt them?

OC for ME · Jan 20, 2016

beebobby said:
I figured I would use a source you are familiar with. Do you consider the Blaze an accurate source of information?
It wasn't a "you tube video" although it did make it there. It was a highly promoted derogatory hit piece designed to incite muslims. A recruitment tool for violence. Were there any other locations in that region that had riots due to the video?
The CIA wrote the talking points and provided the intel that Susan Rice used that weekend. Why should she doubt them?

http://www.theblaze.com/news/innocence-of-muslims-film/

So, either it was the video as the government claimed, or it was not the video as the government did not claim.

Anyway, enough on the OT stuff. Cruz is not the right guy. He made his bed so to speak. Good as a senator in my view (and that job may be at risk), as a prez, non starter.

Rand Paul would be better. But, 'is Rand Paul a natural-born citizen' is the next question liberals will ask. Here is a starting point.

http://www.biography.com/people/rand-paul-588472

Then again we only have info found on the Interwebz and we all know that "You can't put stuff on the Interwebz if it ain't true...no?"

Need just a few liberals around to remind us all what the absence of individual liberty really "looks" like.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 20, 2016

beebobby said:
I didn't have to see anything, the State of Hawaii verified it and I believe them.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...obamas-birth-certificate-for-az-sec-of-state/

I am not a birther.

Yet the State of Hawaii like any other state shouldn't be taken at their word.

beebobby · Jan 20, 2016

sudden valley gunner said:
I am not a birther.

Yet the State of Hawaii like any other state shouldn't be taken at their word.

What about the RNC? I'm sure they dug deep for any dirt on Obama and would have brought it to light during one of his campaigns. Or maybe they were in on the conspiracy too.

I thought that your hate and distrust of the govt. was limited to the fed., now the state governments are suspect as well? What's next, local govt.?

Cruz is not elegilble for president

Regular Member

Banned

New member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member