Knew it was coming?

[Longiron]

This is interesting.  If this lawyer has standing to sue, why wouldn't he have standing to sue the big 0?  Does that mean that one of us could sue 0?  This last year of his presidency is going to be sheer hell - maybe we should sue.

This could have been done with Barry. However did anyone ever expect the RINOGOPe to have any courage to do it. McCain and Mittens both could have done the same thing but that required a PAIR and they lost that 50+ years ago. MITTENS should be running for his 2nd term but he has the name MITTENS for a reason.

[Bigun]

This could have been done with Barry. However did anyone ever expect the RINOGOPe to have any courage to do it. McCain and Mittens both could have done the same thing but that required a PAIR and they lost that 50+ years ago. MITTENS should be running for his 2nd term but he has the name MITTENS for a reason.

There were literally hundreds of lawsuits filed over Barry's eligibility and none of them went anywhere due to lack of standing of the filers. The same will be true of this.

[HAPPY2BME]

He doesn't! This will go exactly nowhere!

==================================

You may like this.

==================================

Cruz Gets Hit With Citizenship Question, Sends Crowd Into Frenzy With 1 Sentence

“Stop me if you’ve heard this before,” Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto said to Ted Cruz Thursday night.

Introducing an issue that has dogged the presidential candidate in recent days, due in large part to rival Donald Trump, Cavuto asked Cruz to defend his eligibility to run for the office given his Canadian birth.

“You were born in Canada to an American mother,” the moderator said, “so you were and are considered an American citizen. But that fellow next to you, Donald Trump, and others, have said that being born in Canada is not natural born. Do you want to try to close this up once and for all tonight?”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/277125-2/

[libertybele]

So ... as it seems and as I had suspected and by the comments made by Trump last night -- Trump wants Cruz as his VP and in fact checked into the whole natural born citizen issue and found no issue -- it wasn't until Cruz topped him in the polls that Trump made it in an issue -- that's why Cruz responded the way he did when Trump mentioned in the debate that if he wanted Cruz as his VP it would be an issue and so he needed to take care of it. 

"Back in September,” Cruz said, “my friend Donald Trump said he had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there — there was nothing to this birther issue. Now, since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed, but the poll numbers have.”

[Longiron]

So ... as it seems and as I had suspected and by the comments made by Trump last night -- Trump wants Cruz as his VP and in fact checked into the whole natural born citizen issue and found no issue -- it wasn't until Cruz topped him in the polls that Trump made it in an issue -- that's why Cruz responded the way he did when Trump mentioned in the debate that if he wanted Cruz as his VP it would be an issue and so he needed to take care of it. 

"Back in September,” Cruz said, “my friend Donald Trump said he had his lawyers look at this from every which way, and there was no issue there — there was nothing to this birther issue. Now, since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed, but the poll numbers have.”

In all due respect LIBERTY most all want the QUESTION to go away. Most know CRUZ will be eligible but it is a question that will always be there if not addressed. Address it now and not give the DEMS anything to run on. You know they will not run on their record? CRUZ is a good person but that does not qualify him as a candidate or possible VP at this point in time. Hopefully it will be answered legally in a very short time and ALL CONSERVATIVES can choose their candidate and get after Hillary or Bernie or whomever.

[libertybele]

In all due respect LIBERTY most all want the QUESTION to go away. Most know CRUZ will be eligible but it is a question that will always be there if not addressed. Address it now and not give the DEMS anything to run on. You know they will not run on their record? CRUZ is a good person but that does not qualify him as a candidate or possible VP at this point in time. Hopefully it will be answered legally in a very short time and ALL CONSERVATIVES can choose their candidate and get after Hillary or Bernie or whomever.

With equal respect, Long, it wasn't until Donald made Cruz's eligibility a focus that it wasn't even an issue that was brought up.  Trump admittedly stated that he didn't bring it up until after Cruz started to top him in the polls.  Secondly, apparently Trump has already looked into the eligibility issue; obviously he's been considering Cruz as his VP.  As much as it appears that Trump has the nomination in his pocket; there is the possibility that he won't get it. My concern is what he will do ... if he is going to attack someone whom he obviously admires enough to be his VP just because he's gaining in the polls, what is he going to do should he lose ... that says something of his character.  I would lay you odds, that he would be the one to sue Cruz if he doesn't get the nomination.  That definitely wouldn't be good for the party -- even Trump so much as admitted that.

[Longiron]

With equal respect, Long, it wasn't until Donald made Cruz's eligibility a focus that it wasn't even an issue that was brought up.  Trump admittedly stated that he didn't bring it up until after Cruz started to top him in the polls.  Secondly, apparently Trump has already looked into the eligibility issue; obviously he's been considering Cruz as his VP.  As much as it appears that Trump has the nomination in his pocket; there is the possibility that he won't get it. My concern is what he will do ... if he is going to attack someone whom he obviously admires enough to be his VP just because he's gaining in the polls, what is he going to do should he lose ... that says something of his character.  I would lay you odds, that he would be the one to sue Cruz if he doesn't get the nomination.  That definitely wouldn't be good for the party -- even Trump so much as admitted that.

Liberty the lawsuit thing has already been done by a Texas lawyer. I posted that in another link. So hopefully this gets settled by a court of law so TRUMP doing a lawsuit will not happen. TRUMP asked the question and if he was / is thinking CRUZ as his VP most would do the same thing? No candidate needs that self imposed baggage. B ack to it is a QUESTION that needs addressed.. If not addressed you don't think the DEMS would have not done this?? Hell they would have filed suit somewhere with a LIB judge and he would rule he is not eligible. They probably have the district already identified.  One final NOTE: Shame on TRUMP for trying to WIN. The party of one that we have comes about with no opposition party and even the LIBS will agree the RINOGOPe is NO opposition Party.

[HAPPY2BME]

Liberty the lawsuit thing has already been done by a Texas lawyer. I posted that in another link. So hopefully this gets settled by a court of law so TRUMP doing a lawsuit will not happen. TRUMP asked the question and if he was / is thinking CRUZ as his VP most would do the same thing? No candidate needs that self imposed baggage. B ack to it is a QUESTION that needs addressed.. If not addressed you don't think the DEMS would have not done this?? Hell they would have filed suit somewhere with a LIB judge and he would rule he is not eligible. They probably have the district already identified.  One final NOTE: Shame on TRUMP for trying to WIN. The party of one that we have comes about with no opposition party and even the LIBS will agree the RINOGOPe is NO opposition Party.

=======================================

The obvious is always overlooked.

[libertybele]

=======================================

The obvious is always overlooked.

Yes, I saw your post in regards to the lawsuit coming out of TX and as another poster stated it will probably go nowhere.  No shame in trying to win; but there can be shame in how you win...just sayin'.  The point I was trying to make is IF Trump doesn't win IA, he may indeed bring suit against Cruz all the way to SCOTUS, which is a hypocrisy to him stating he would select Cruz as his VP AND the fact that he already had his lawyers investigate the issue and declared it to be a non-issue. The SCOTUS IMHO will probably NOT rule in his favor simply because they've been siding with the DEMS and Cruz has called them on it.  Trump being Trump has enough momentum behind him that he will demand that the Supremes hear the case. IF Trump does bring suit and ties up the election in court; it will prove he is strictly out for himself, without regard of the impact it will have on the party as a whole ...but then again ... I still feel he may only be running under the GOP umbrella as it is the path of least resistance. 

[katzenjammer]

Wrong! I am a natural Born Citizen as a fact of nature and NO legislative act can ever alter that!

As you and I both agree, the court challenges aren't going to go anywhere.  No one will be found to have standing.

But one nagging aspect that Mr. Cruz may have to answer at some point, is where is his copy of this (generic example):

Because the Canadian birth certificate that his campaign has sent to Brietbart for dissemination (which legally does not count as actually providing the document in any quo warranto process), only offers proof of his Canadian citizenship.  (Also note on the above, there is a legal statement on the FS-240 that certainly raises eyebrows!) 

[EdinVA]

Yes, I saw your post in regards to the lawsuit coming out of TX and as another poster stated it will probably go nowhere.  No shame in trying to win; but there can be shame in how you win...just sayin'.  The point I was trying to make is IF Trump doesn't win IA, he may indeed bring suit against Cruz all the way to SCOTUS, which is a hypocrisy to him stating he would select Cruz as his VP AND the fact that he already had his lawyers investigate the issue and declared it to be a non-issue. The SCOTUS IMHO will probably NOT rule in his favor simply because they've been siding with the DEMS and Cruz has called them on it.  Trump being Trump has enough momentum behind him that he will demand that the Supremes hear the case. IF Trump does bring suit and ties up the election in court; it will prove he is strictly out for himself, without regard of the impact it will have on the party as a whole ...but then again ... I still feel he may only be running under the GOP umbrella as it is the path of least resistance.

You mean that Trump could not beat Hilary or Uncle Bernie if he was running Democrat?

[HAPPY2BME]

The SCOTUS IMHO will probably NOT rule in his favor simply because they've been siding with the DEMS and Cruz has called them on it.

========================================

OK, focus on this for a second.

Do you really believe the SCOTUS will drop everything and rule on something like this BEFORE the election?

The answer is no.

And why?

Think for a moment of the ramification of such a ruling.  It would HAVE TO implicate not just Cruz's citizenship eligibility to be the POTUS, but much more importantly such a ruling would also IMPACT the eligibility of tens of millions of illegal aliens eligibility or Ineligibility to  .... BECOME  a citizen.

They won't touch it.

[flowers]

========================================

OK, focus on this for a second.

Do you really believe the SCOTUS will drop everything and rule on something like this BEFORE the election?

The answer is no.

And why?

Think for a moment of the ramification of such a ruling.  It would HAVE TO implicate not just Cruz's citizenship eligibility to be the POTUS, but much more importantly such a ruling would also IMPACT the eligibility of tens of millions of illegal aliens eligibility or Ineligibility to  .... BECOME  a citizen.

They won't touch it.

Scotus is taking up that voter issue case. It will say whether or not anyone can vote here. Citizen or not. They will rule in favor of that....thus it won't matter if they are citizens or not. This is all about one main thing. Winning the WH for ever. Votes for them.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Wrong! I am a natural Born Citizen as a fact of nature and NO legislative act can ever alter that!

Me too!  I was born in the United States with two American citizens for parents.  Congress cannot touch me--I am a natural born citizen of the United States--forever.

[ABX]

Here is what it says!

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 3, § 349, 66 Stat. 267; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1256, § 2, 68 Stat. 1146; Pub. L. 87–301, § 19, Sept. 26, 1961, 75 Stat. 656; Pub. L. 94–412, title V, § 501(a), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 2, 4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 97–116, § 18(k)(2), (q), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1620, 1621; Pub. L. 99–653, §§ 18, 19, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3658; Pub. L. 100–525, §§ 8(m), (n), 9(hh), Oct. 24, 1988, 102 Stat. 2618, 2622.)

Every one of those things must be initiated by the citizen himself!

Yes, but it shows Congress can and does strip citizenship, that's why it is important to go beyond labels to support people who believe in the fundamental principles of Constitutional Conservatism.  If the pendulum keeps swinging, don't think that some future Congress could decide that under that statute being general with the 'political subdivision' of a foreign state also includes groups they deem unAmerican and subversive? The point is they can, it is something that if we let the pendulum swing the wrong way too far, could easily happen all under the guise of existing statute. 

[truth_seeker]

There is NOT a legal precedent for a President to be born outside the US because none have.

Any lawyer worth his salt would first check it that way. Maybe a prominent Republican Senator will step forward, and advocate for Ted.

You say that is not happening? Maybe Ted shouldn't have pissed all over his colleagues.

Ted can't be his own lawyer, unless you doubt the saying about a lawyer taking himself on as a client, has a fool for a lawyer, and a fool as a client.

Etc.

[Fishrrman]

libertybele wrote:
"Hopefully, a U.S. district court in TX, will rule that Cruz is eligible and that will be the end of it.  Will it satisfy Trump though and the DEMS?"

No.
Of course not.
The left will push this as far as they can for as long as it will take.

I predicted this a few years' ago, when Ted Cruz' name first came to prominence.

Ironically, I would like to see the leftists WIN this one.
That's right, I really said that, and I mean what I said.

Because if they do win, even though it will be a loss for Cruz -- who I like, please make no mistake about that -- it will be "a win" for the country and the Constitution.

I believe that The Founders' intent insofar as the phrase "natural born citizen" is concerned, is an individual born ON AMERICAN SOIL, to two parents who are AMERICAN CITIZENS, naturalized or otherwise.

Of course the Constitution doesn't clarify this.
But neither does any subsequent legislation passed by Congress since then.
If there truly had been clarification that produced a definitive answer, we wouldn't be having this argument now.

Which is why the courts (read: U.S. Supreme Court) must decide.

If they are unable to come to a clear decision, we need a new, brief Constitutional amendment that defines the term once and for all.
This would be a good one for the upcoming Article V Convention of the States ...

[Fishrrman]

HAPPY2BEME wrote above:
"OK, focus on this for a second.
Do you really believe the SCOTUS will drop everything and rule on something like this BEFORE the election?
The answer is no."

Did you really believe that the SCOTUS would drop everything and rule on the validity of the recounts in Florida in 2000?

[HAPPY2BME]

Yes, but it shows Congress can and does strip citizenship ..

=======================================

Can you (or anybody) cite just ONE instance where Congress has 'stripped' an American citizen of their U.S. Citizenship for being elected in or appointed to an elected office in a foreign government?

e.g., it just doesn't happen.

[HAPPY2BME]

HAPPY2BEME wrote above:
"OK, focus on this for a second.
Do you really believe the SCOTUS will drop everything and rule on something like this BEFORE the election?
The answer is no."

Did you really believe that the SCOTUS would drop everything and rule on the validity of the recounts in Florida in 2000?

============================================

On that one, yes I actually did.  The situation there coming into existence AFTER the two POTUS candidates had already been legally vetted as U.S. native-born citizens, therefore meeting their citizenship requirements to hold the office of POTUS.

[HAPPY2BME]

There is NOT a legal precedent for a President to be born outside the US because none have.

Any lawyer worth his salt would first check it that way. Maybe a prominent Republican Senator will step forward, and advocate for Ted.

====================================

OK.  Let's flashback to both 2008 (Obama -v- McCain) and 2012 (Obama -v- Romney).  In both elections, NEITHER McCain nor Romney challenged Obama on his citizenship eligibility either inside or outside of their 'debates.'

[truth_seeker]

====================================

OK.  Let's flashback to both 2008 (Obama -v- McCain) and 2012 (Obama -v- Romney).  In both elections, NEITHER McCain nor Romney challenged Obama on his citizenship eligibility either inside or outside of their 'debates.'

Hawaii = In the US

Alberta = Outside the US

[Longiron]

====================================

OK.  Let's flashback to both 2008 (Obama -v- McCain) and 2012 (Obama -v- Romney).  In both elections, NEITHER McCain nor Romney challenged Obama on his citizenship eligibility either inside or outside of their 'debates.'

Guarantee you one thing if it was McCain or Mittens being questioned on this the DEMS,LIBS would still be fighting this issue. DEMS fight for POWER but the RINOGOPe fights for Positions. 

[HAPPY2BME]

DEMS fight for POWER but the RINOGOPe fights for Positions.

Quote of the day.