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/
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/ (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.
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/
=========================================
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."
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...
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...
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
=============================================
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?
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).
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!
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?
8 USC ss. 1481 begs to differ.
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 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. :chairbang:
He doesn't! This will go exactly nowhere!
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. :shrug:
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. :patriot:
=======================================
The obvious is always overlooked.
Wrong! I am a natural Born Citizen as a fact of nature and NO legislative act can ever alter that!
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.
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.
========================================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.
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.
Wrong! I am a natural Born Citizen as a fact of nature and NO legislative act can ever alter that!
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 ..
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?
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.
====================================Hawaii = In the US
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.'
====================================
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.'
DEMS fight for POWER but the RINOGOPe fights for Positions.