Knew it was coming?

[Longiron]

Cruz get this settled and move forward. You are eligible but have to get rid of the question, please!



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/15/texas-attorney-files-eligibility-lawsuit-against-ted-cruz/

[HAPPY2BME]

upaces88 says:   
January 15, 2016 at 3:24 am   

WE all like Ted Cruz. He is a GREAT lawyer. He is a good man!

That is not the point. Obama set the first legal precendent; and he still barged into the WH with voter fraud both times. No matter how much we like Ted. No matter how he has integrity. We cannot allow this to happen again. TWO Presidents who were/are not elligible to be POTUS.
​…”When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after making a big point of opposing my views in class — arguing stridently for sticking with the “original meaning” against the idea of a more elastic “living Constitution” whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted never convinced me — nor did I convince him.

At least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair weather originalist, abandoning that method’s narrow constraints when it suits his ambition”… ~ Laurence H Tribe (Harvard)

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/12/senator-ted-cruz-was-for-the-constitution-before-he-turned-against-it/

[EdinVA]

Cruz get this settled and move forward. You are eligible but have to get rid of the question, please!



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/15/texas-attorney-files-eligibility-lawsuit-against-ted-cruz/

Exactly, and that was the point Trump was trying to make... just fix it and stop self identifying.

[HAPPY2BME]

Exactly, and that was the point Trump was trying to make... just fix it and stop self identifying.

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

I like Ted Cruz in many ways.

He missed his mark by a mile though when he probed Trump on Trump's mother being born in Denmark.

Trump slammed him (immediately glossed over by Fox moderators) when he said: "Yes.  But I was born HERE.  You were born in CANADA."

[libertybele]

Cruz get this settled and move forward. You are eligible but have to get rid of the question, please!



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/01/15/texas-attorney-files-eligibility-lawsuit-against-ted-cruz/

Interesting.  I think it is unfortunate as Cruz in addition to his Senate duties, campaigning for Prez he's going to be tied up in court.  Though he called for an expedited ruling; either way it could wind up in front of the SCOTUS which will be time consuming. 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?

[libertybele]

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

I like Ted Cruz in many ways.

He missed his mark by a mile though when he probed Trump on Trump's mother being born in Denmark.

Trump slammed him (immediately glossed over by Fox moderators) when he said: "Yes.  But I was born HERE.  You were born in CANADA."

No. He didn't miss the mark at all.  The point being that ANY non-citizen pregnant woman entering the U.S. that gives birth on U.S. soil, gives birth to a natural born U.S. citizen??  Meaning any pregnant terrorist, illegal alien, etc., can give birth to potentially our next president but a U.S. citizen who gives birth outside of the U.S.; that child is ineligible??  I find that troubling.

[EdinVA]

Interesting.  I think it is unfortunate as Cruz in addition to his Senate duties, campaigning for Prez he's going to be tied up in court.  Though he called for an expedited ruling; either way it could wind up in front of the SCOTUS which will be time consuming. 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?

Understand liberty... Cruz has had many years to deal with this and should have.  Cruz touting his own interpretation of the constitution for his personal situation is like a doctor self diagnosing.
I like Ted and feel he has a real shot at winning the whitehouse but I don't want his first 6 months in office to be tied up dealing with this...

[libertybele]

Understand liberty... Cruz has had many years to deal with this and should have.  Cruz touting his own interpretation of the constitution for his personal situation is like a doctor self diagnosing.
I like Ted and feel he has a real shot at winning the whitehouse but I don't want his first 6 months in office to be tied up dealing with this...

I completely understand. Keep in mind, that Hussein had to deal with birther issues as well, and was sued several times, though the cases were dropped.  Cruz has spent years defending the Constitution and surely he know the qualifications need to be eligible to become president. In listening to his speeches, reading his book, researching his background and education, etc., my impression has always been above all else he is truthful and very conscientious.  IMHO, either he has already gotten the green light from those he knows in his dealings with the Supreme Court and other courts and knows as well as in his heart of hearts that it is a non-issue. Recall, that in last nights debate he stated to Trump that the chances of it going to court and him not being eligible is zero.   IF (and this I doubt) he knowingly feels that his is not adhering to the Constitution on this issue,  his conscious will now get the best of him and he will withdraw.  I believe that Cruz has resolved this issue in his heart and what he believes in.  I don't see Cruz as one to backtrack or to go against his principles and values to achieve something for himself; I just don't see that in his character. 

[HAPPY2BME]

Understand liberty... Cruz has had many years to deal with this and should have.  Cruz touting his own interpretation of the constitution for his personal situation is like a doctor self diagnosing.
I like Ted and feel he has a real shot at winning the whitehouse but I don't want his first 6 months in office to be tied up dealing with this...

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

   
Ted is a nice guy, but is he REALLY eligible for POTUS? THE END OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY

[ABX]

Understand liberty... Cruz has had many years to deal with this and should have.  Cruz touting his own interpretation of the constitution for his personal situation is like a doctor self diagnosing.
I like Ted and feel he has a real shot at winning the whitehouse but I don't want his first 6 months in office to be tied up dealing with this...

See my comments in this thread including links in response to the OP.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,191392.msg764563/topicseen.html#msg764563

The problem in the blog and armchair politic world, chairborne rangers have all made them experts on the subject and you'll find a hundred different ways to look at it if you just go by them versus the founder's intent (per my notes and links in the link above). Saying he should have dealt with it is like saying W should have dealt with every 9/11 truther conspiracy.

[Bigun]

See my comments in this thread including links in response to the OP.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,191392.msg764563/topicseen.html#msg764563

The problem in the blog and armchair politic world, chairborne rangers have all made them experts on the subject and you'll find a hundred different ways to look at it if you just go by them versus the founder's intent (per my notes and links in the link above). Saying he should have dealt with it is like saying W should have dealt with every 9/11 truther conspiracy.

Let me ask you this question. Could a change in U.S. statutory law render some future Ted Cruz born in Canada under identical circumstances not a U.S. Citizen?

[ABX]

Let me ask you this question. Could a change in U.S. statutory law render some future Ted Cruz born in Canada under identical circumstances not a U.S. Citizen?

Sure, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the sole authority to define citizenship and naturalization requirements. Remember, even being born here to parents who were born here for generations and generations prior such as Native Americans, was not even considered a citizen. It is why it is a dangerous path going down the road of giving big government reactionaries power versus Constitutional Conservatives. They could, under law, make drastic changes that are far away from our values, even if they claim to stand on our side.

[libertybele]

Let me ask you this question. Could a change in U.S. statutory law render some future Ted Cruz born in Canada under identical circumstances not a U.S. Citizen?

Had to think about this one -- the law would have to be changed to state that a mother being a U.S. citizen would have no bearing on the child's citizenship.

[Bigun]

Sure, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the sole authority to define citizenship and naturalization requirements. Remember, even being born here to parents who were born here for generations and generations prior such as Native Americans, was not even considered a citizen. It is why it is a dangerous path going down the road of giving big government reactionaries power versus Constitutional Conservatives. They could, under law, make drastic changes that are far away from our values, even if they claim to stand on our side.

Then your entire argument falls on it's face. I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America and that can never be changed by ANY act of the legislature past, present, or future!

[ABX]

Then your entire argument falls on it's face. I am a natural born citizen of the United States of America and that can never be changed by ANY act of the legislature past, present, or future!

Actually not because you are protected under the ex post facto provision In the constitution. They can't change your citizenship after the fact, just define it In the future like they have in the past for slaves, children of slaves, and Native Americans.

[HAPPY2BME]

Let me ask you this question. Could a change in U.S. statutory law render some future Ted Cruz born in Canada under identical circumstances not a U.S. Citizen?

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

I'll see you one and raise you one.

This 'citizenship' crap only comes up during these POTUS (circus) debates, and yes it is a major detractor from the core debate issues of (WHO) is going to make the best POTUS, and WHO is most eligible.

OK, here it is:  Between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, which one is more likely to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?

And here's why I ask it:  Any ONE of those illegal (ILLEGAL) aliens granted amnesty can become a U.S. citizen, and therefore become eligible to become the President of The United States.

Do you see the (endless) quagmire?

[Bigun]

Actually not because you are protected under the ex post facto provision In the constitution. They can't change your citizenship after the fact, just define it In the future like they have in the past for slaves, children of slaves, and Native Americans.

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

[Bigun]

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

I'll see you one and raise you one.

This 'citizenship' crap only comes up during these POTUS (circus) debates, and yes it is a major detractor from the core debate issues of (WHO) is going to make the best POTUS, and WHO is most eligible.

OK, here it is:  Between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, which one is more likely to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens?

And here's why I ask it:  Any ONE of those illegal (ILLEGAL) aliens granted amnesty can become a U.S. citizen, and therefore become eligible to become the President of The United States.

Do you see the (endless) quagmire?

Irellavant, immaterial, and nothing to do with what is being discussed here!

[ABX]

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

That's what I said. Your status can't be changed because the constitution forbids application of changes after the fact. Ex post facto. They can, however change it for future generations. They can say your grandchildren who have yet to be born are not Natural Born Citizens unless, for example, the parents pledge a loyalty oath. (More complicated than one law but just giving a what if example).

[Bigun]

That's what I said. Your status can't be changed because the constitution forbids application of changes after the fact. Ex post facto. They can, however change it for future generations. They can say your grandchildren who have yet to be born are not Natural Born Citizens unless, for example, the parents pledge a loyalty oath. (More complicated than one law but just giving a what if example).

NO! They cannot!  If you are born in the United States to parents who are citizens at the time of your birth you are forever a citizen period!  Unless YOU yourself renounce that citizenship that is!

[ABX]

NO! They cannot!  If you are born in the United States to parents who are citizens at the time of your birth you are forever a citizen period!  Unless YOU yourself renounce that citizenship that is!

8 USC ss. 1481 begs to differ.

[Longiron]

Interesting.  I think it is unfortunate as Cruz in addition to his Senate duties, campaigning for Prez he's going to be tied up in court.  Though he called for an expedited ruling; either way it could wind up in front of the SCOTUS which will be time consuming. 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?

CRUZ is eligible to run for POTUS. Hopefully this settles the question? That is all TRUMP said and only asked the question? Rubio is now being sued over this BUT there is more teeth to his case than CRUZ.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/14/report-rubio-fights-a-florida-lawsuit-claiming-he-has-a-birther-problem/

[Bigun]

8 USC ss. 1481 begs to differ.

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!

[Sanguine]

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.

[Bigun]

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.

He doesn't! This will go exactly nowhere!