It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Cruz was born in Canada

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienSupernova
a reply to: yesyesyes


Actually I read your post earlier where you did indeed call the poster a closet racist

It's really nasty and dishonest of you to deny that then accuse people of things while you thought the thread have carried in accusing members of things and making attacks

Despite all that. Your whole thread isn't founded he's eligible without s doubt
that's coming from a person that's going to vote for Bernie

Love love
AlienSupernova


Doesn't matter who you are voting for. You could have bias from being pro-Obama, pro-democrat, or from being anti-birther.




posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Except that the claim is false and has no standing

Everything else is irrelevant

Love love
AlienSupernova


edit on 13-1-2016 by AlienSupernova because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The courts don't have jurisdiction to interpret natural law.


Except these courts....


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.


www.obamaconspiracy.org...



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Vom. You are citing the worst Obama conspiracy blog, evah.

Try this: In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Justia



edit on 13-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Justia


The elsewhere is the courts, as I showed. They have declared Obama is a natural born US citizen!



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

Justia


The elsewhere is the courts, as I showed. They have declared Obama is a natural born US citizen!


The courts only have jurisdiction over federal and constitutional law, not natural law. The framers deferred to natural law on this issue. No court in the U.S.has jurisdiction over interpreting and applying natural law. It's up to the People to enforce/revolt if they have the hutzpah.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The courts only have jurisdiction over federal and constitutional law,


So they have jurisdiction over interpreting the constitution...

The way some people try and twist the facts to try and show Obama was not eligible to become President!



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
The courts only have jurisdiction over federal and constitutional law,


So they have jurisdiction over interpreting the constitution...

The way some people try and twist the facts to try and show Obama was not eligible to become President!


And the framers deferred to natural law on this issue...hence the phrase "natural born Citizen."



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes I meant Moot thank you ,well that's beside the point they had a vote to move from territory to state and they choose state hood, if they decide they want to go back to being a Kingdom they may well vote to do so, kinda like Texas threatened to go be it's own country often.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
And the framers deferred to natural law on this issue...hence the phrase "natural born Citizen."


Well, there are 2 types of citizen, naturalised and natural born. Obama was never naturalised, he is natural born.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes I meant Moot thank you ,well that's beside the point they had a vote to move from territory to state and they choose state hood, if they decide they want to go back to being a Kingdom they may well vote to do so, kinda like Texas threatened to go be it's own country often.


Ha! Well the point was "moot" according to you...but I did know what you meant.

However, I would say they are at a huge disadvantage at this point. And that is tragic, and in no way amusing...even if partisans are tickled to death by their tragedy.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
And the framers deferred to natural law on this issue...hence the phrase "natural born Citizen."


Well, there are 2 types of citizen, naturalised and natural born. Obama was never naturalised, he is natural born.


I would argue there are citizens by positive law and those by natural law.

Obama is a citizen by positive law.



posted on Jan, 13 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Cruz's mother was a Canadian citizen when he was born. So technically he is not a naturally born citizen. So wouldn't she be considered a canadian citizen when he was born? If I moved to Finland and got citizenship there, my kids would be Finns, not Americans since I was not an American at the time.
edit on 13-1-2016 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join