Ted Cruz was born in Canada - is he eligble for the Presidency?

a reply to: Kali74

obama's mother was a U.S. citizen from all accounts and was living in hawaii and married to his father when Barack was born, so yes he is a "legal" president.
not much sense debating the validity of his presidency at this time.

Moot point, as Cruz has basically no shot at this...

It is interesting though. Legally, both Obama and Cruz are considered natural birth citizens.

a reply to: Gazrok


Actually no they are not. The issue has never been ruled on by a court of law. Technically their status is "undefined". And no court in the USA would ever take the case.

Simply because if they lost could you even imagine the chaos that would erupt? 8 years of the existence of the government of the US would simply cease to exist. Hundreds of government officials would not just wake up the next day without a job but owing up to 8 years of wages back to the government. And that would include judges. And 2 Supreme Court justices.

All federal laws passed and court rulings of those 8 years would be invalidated. And imagine all the screaming when the money clawbacks begin.

And Obama would be up on treason charges. Not to mention murder and theft of government resources. Murder? Since his presidency would be invalid then all orders by him and his government would be invalid. All deaths resulting from those orders would be murder.

Obama is simply a untried and not convicted criminal. And the entire system is an accomplice to his crimes.

Now there is a conspiracy.

a reply to: ntech

Actually no they are not.

Are you basing this on the fact that Obama's father wasn't an American citizen?

Obama is simply a untried and not convicted criminal. And the entire system is an accomplice to his crimes.

Do you think that Obama is a criminal because he wasn't qualified to be president, in your mind?

The reason Donald Trump won't say that Obama is ineligible to be President because he was born in Kenya to an American mother is because it would mean that Ted Cruz definitely isn't eligible, in his eyes.

If Republicans truly think that someone born abroad wouldn't be considered an American, even if one of their parents were American citizens, then they would have to admit that Ted Cruz is ineligible.

For years, "natural born citizen" has been agreed to mean "Born in the United States" NOT "American at birth". Only when Ted Cruz came along as a serious candidate did the meaning of the phrase change.

Under this interpretation, Ted Cruz is DEFINITELY NOT eligible for the Presidency. There is no question that he was born in Canada, he has confirmed he was born a Canadian.

John McCain was only eligible because he was born on a US Naval Base, that is considered US soil.

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: Gazrok


Actually no they are not. The issue has never been ruled on by a court of law. Technically their status is "undefined". And no court in the USA would ever take the case.

Simply because if they lost could you even imagine the chaos that would erupt? 8 years of the existence of the government of the US would simply cease to exist. Hundreds of government officials would not just wake up the next day without a job but owing up to 8 years of wages back to the government. And that would include judges. And 2 Supreme Court justices.

All federal laws passed and court rulings of those 8 years would be invalidated. And imagine all the screaming when the money clawbacks begin.

And Obama would be up on treason charges. Not to mention murder and theft of government resources. Murder? Since his presidency would be invalid then all orders by him and his government would be invalid. All deaths resulting from those orders would be murder.

Obama is simply a untried and not convicted criminal. And the entire system is an accomplice to his crimes.

Now there is a conspiracy.

]

Obama was an American citizen at birth under the same rules that Ted Cruz is considered to be an American Citizen at birth.

Even if he was born in Kenya, his mother was an American citizen (this hasn't even been questioned) which means that Obama was American at birth under the same rules being applied for Ted Cruz (Who has confirmed and admitted that he was NOT born in the USA, but was American at birth as his mother is American)

What happened to the "you wouldn't believe the stuff my private investigators are finding on Obama in Hawaii" that Donald Trump was spouting off around 2011 / 2012 ?

He was going to release "All sorts of incriminating documents to prove Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and 'all sorts of other stuff' ".

Then nothing. Crickets.

Other than a nice vacation in Hawaii on Donald Trump's dime, what DID those investigators really find?

Nada. Otherwise Trump would have released it right away.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: scattergun
I see another Birther debate rolling in. Personally it is a non issue with me. I couldn't care less where the next candidate is from really. My concern lies in the capability of the person, not where he or she was born. Most of these candidates where born in the USA, and most of them are complete idiots. I'd take anyone else available that was competent over most of what we are seeing right now...

Except that Cruz and Obama are also idiots so really your point is moot. Also, there are many places where people want to destroy the US and while Canada may not like us many Kenyans would like to see the US destroyed. It would probably be best to avoid people from regions that hate us.

Do try and get your facts straight. The US favorably in Kenya is 84% (one the highest in the world) while in Canada it is 68%. Granted the US scores high marks across the world except for in Russia and the Middle East. The old everybody hates the US went away with the last administration.

So are we going to see the Republicans flip-flop and defend the position that someone doesn't have to be born in the U.S. in order to become President?

They already did. McCain was born in Panama and they didn't care when he ran against Obama. Then Romney ran and wasn't he born or grew up in Mexico?

a reply to: windword

It was the opinion of the founding fathers that a person like Obama should not be eligible for president. Per Vattel's book a natural born citizen has 2 citizen parents. While Obama's mother was a citizen his father was a Kenyan with British citizenship. Obama is a citizen but, not a natural born one.

Also Obama took great pains to mislead the public on his parentage before the 2008 election. That should be grounds for fraud charges.

Obama took great pains to mislead the public on his parentage before the 2008 election. That should be grounds for fraud charges

Sure he did (not). But Bush mislead people to start a war that killed over 100,000 people and that's just fine?

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: Gazrok

Actually no they are not.

Wrong, Obama certainly is.

The issue has never been ruled on by a court of law.

Actually it has, many times.

Technically their status is "undefined". And no court in the USA would ever take the case.

Apart from these, you mean!

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.” Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion. [The judge cites Hollander and Ankeny]

Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling: “In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born in the United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. [Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

Paige v. Obama et al. (Vermont 2012) ruling: While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.

Fair v. Obama (Maryland 2012) ruling: The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [US v Wong], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. [The Court also cites Ankeny at length, and determined that Obama is eligible.]

Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections ruling on motion for reconsideration (2013): … the Fourteenth Amendment defines citizenship as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the Untied States.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court held, in Miller v Albright (452 US 420, 423-424 [1998]), that:
There are “two sources of citizenship and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.” 169 US at 702.

So as can easily be seen, birthers refuse to accept reality.

originally posted by: ntech
Per Vattel's book a natural born citizen has 2 citizen parents.

Vatttel has nothing to do with the US constitution.

Obama is a citizen but, not a natural born one.

The courts state otherwise.

Also Obama took great pains to mislead the public on his parentage before the 2008 election.

Care to show some evidence for thaat?

My opinion? Who gives a..... on both. It's a fricken distraction from REAL issues. That said, please don't call Cruz Canadian. Pretty please.

originally posted by: intrepid
My opinion? Who gives a..... on both. It's a fricken distraction from REAL issues. That said, please don't call Cruz Canadian. Pretty please.

Your opinion is that you don't care, not that no one has a right to care because you do not...other than not wanting him to be Canadian.

Correct?

So why should you expect any U.S. Citizen questioning Cruz and his 'policies' have to accept that he IS a natural born U.S. Citizen when they don't like the idea either?

Personally, I think we are taking a HUGE risk already by accepting someone who was born in Hawaii -- a state the U.S. illegally annexed through a coup d'etat and in violation of an international treaty -- as a natural born citizen.

Source

What if someone angry about the violation of international law and the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy decided to infiltrate the highest office in the U.S. government to retaliate?

The concept of a 'natural born U.S. citizen' is as broad at the unique situations each of us is born into. Determining natural born citizenship should take MUCH legal debate, not a complete blackout and absence of serious debate.

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: windword

It was the opinion of the founding fathers that a person like Obama should not be eligible for president. Per Vattel's book a natural born citizen has 2 citizen parents. While Obama's mother was a citizen his father was a Kenyan with British citizenship. Obama is a citizen but, not a natural born one.

Also Obama took great pains to mislead the public on his parentage before the 2008 election. That should be grounds for fraud charges.

I don't know about Vatell, but I do know that Obama couldn't have been president back them because of his color, as only white men in good standing were allowed citizenship, in those days. So, there's that.

The Act of 1790 was superseded by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.
Major changes to the definition of citizenship were ratified in the nineteenth century following the American Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 granted citizenship to people born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of their parents' race, citizenship, or place of birth, but it excluded untaxed Indians (those living on reservations). The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended "the naturalization laws" to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent."
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: intrepid
My opinion? Who gives a..... on both. It's a fricken distraction from REAL issues. That said, please don't call Cruz Canadian. Pretty please.

Your opinion is that you don't care, not that no one has a right to care because you do not...other than not wanting him to be Canadian.

Correct?

Correct. What's with this crap? Obama is American. McCain is American. Cruz is American. Like I said, it's a distraction from important issues.

originally posted by: windword
but I do know that Obama couldn't have been president back them because of his color, as only white men in good standing were allowed citizenship, in those days. So, there's that.

Birthers obviously think that should apply today!

If this US president stint doesn't work out
Rafael could always become
Prime Minister of Canada or Israel.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: intrepid
My opinion? Who gives a..... on both. It's a fricken distraction from REAL issues. That said, please don't call Cruz Canadian. Pretty please.

Your opinion is that you don't care, not that no one has a right to care because you do not...other than not wanting him to be Canadian.

Correct?

Correct. What's with this crap? Obama is American. McCain is American. Cruz is American. Like I said, it's a distraction from important issues.

Cruz is also Canadian though, eh?

it's important despite you proclaiming it's "crap," because divided allegiances are important to political science.

...Unless you reject the science of politics in favor of feeeeeelings.