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.

 

Cruz’s ‘Natural-Born Citizen’ Status Tested in Birther Suit

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't need Trump to raise the issue in order to form my own opinion. I've questioned the meaning of the term since Obama ran, in 2008.

Trump didn't suddenly "care deeply" about the issue until 2011.

ETA: And please don't presume to know who's opinions I care about. TIA.


edit on 15-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

So why weren't you making threads about it back in March when Cruz first announced he was running for Presidency and the actual, intelligent discourse around this debate occurred instead of waiting until the blowhard brought it up? I know -I- noticed he was born in Canada and had to check to see if there was anything there regarding his eligibility, but I did that back in March. When I saw it was fine, I moved on.

I mean frankly, it looks like you are bandwagoning off of Trump's idiocy instead of forming your own opinion on the matter.
edit on 15-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

yeah I watched that and they bood mulitple times on him, you could tell he didnt know how to handle that, so he tried to play it off.

It truly was epic, Cruz did really well last night, IMHO Rubio did well as well, and even though im not a Christie fan, I felt he did much better than what the polls said he did last night



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because I don't enjoy being called stupid and the debate always devolves to that. But, I personally looked into Cruz's birth circumstances well before then.

If I could find a forum to have a mutually-respectful and civil debate, I'd certainly join in more often.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




I don't think it's fair to call it stupidity.


Then what should we call abject denial in the face of facts?




Because I don't enjoy being called stupid and the debate always devolves to that.


I dont recall addressing you directly, not everything is a personal attack..........christ this country has devolved into a state of people so thin skinned everything is a personal attack on "them"...




But, I personally looked into Cruz's birth circumstances well before then


Same question as Krazysh0t here, why didnt you? And I do agree with him it seems like you and others have just used it as a source of opportunity more than any measure of true sincerity or conviction.
edit on 1/15/2016 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask


I dont recall addressing you directly, not everything is a personal attack..........christ this country has devolved into a state of people so thin skinned everything is a personal attack on "them"...



I don't recall addressing you directly when I wrote that either, not everything is a personal attack..........christ this country has devolved into a state of people so thin skinned everything is a personal attack on "them"...



edit on 15-1-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because I don't enjoy being called stupid and the debate always devolves to that. But, I personally looked into Cruz's birth circumstances well before then.


Well for the record, I'm not calling you stupid. It's just that if you had such an issue with this it would have made sense to bring it up back when it was first discussed and maybe brought back up periodically every so often to update yourself on new information obtained. With the Donald, this is the third time he has discussed Cruz' citizenship status.

To me, at this point in the race if you want to discuss the eligibility issue, you are wasting time. There were plenty of opportunities to do so last year, but now I'd rather focus on actual policy measures instead of frivolous things like this that would have little to no impact on his policy decisions.


If I could find a forum to have a mutually-respectful and civil debate, I'd certainly join in more often.


You and me both...



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Laws is laws. However if I was Trump I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet, His dubious business practices should not be overseen and to be honest I'd prefer the Canadian bacon as POTUS rather than a clown with a comb over. How anyone could trust Trump with the worlds superpower defies logic.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have brought the issue up elsewhere and for years, I can assure you that I have.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: xuenchen

Laws is laws. However if I was Trump I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet, His dubious business practices should not be overseen and to be honest I'd prefer the Canadian bacon as POTUS rather than a clown with a comb over. How anyone could trust Trump with the worlds superpower defies logic.



and they wont be if he goes third party or gets the repub nomination, ALL of his transgressions will come to light

Make no mistake the Democratic party is saving its ammo and biding its time.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Lawyers look at laws that would help their case and they are open to interpretation. How they are explained in one court case could be the opposite in another and both are valid points. This is why you have a trial or hearing to make sure that the 'correct interpretation' is used for each case. Some laws are antiquated so you will have rulings like the one that was returned for the issue of 'gay marriage'. A ruling or a precedent has to be made to use as reference sometimes.

This article goes more in depth into the Harvard Law Review article that Benevolent Heretic posted.

www.washingtonpost.com...



In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law.

First, although Katyal and Clement correctly declare that the Supreme Court has recognized that common law is useful to explain constitutional terms, they ignore that law. Instead, they rely on three radical 18th-century British statutes. While it is understandable for a layperson to make such a mistake, it is unforgivable for two lawyers of such experience to equate the common law with statutory law. The common law was unequivocal: Natural-born subjects had to be born in English territory. The then-new statutes were a revolutionary departure from that law.

Second, the authors appropriately ask the question whether the Constitution includes the common-law definition or the statutory approach. But they fail to examine any U.S. sources for the answer. Instead, Katyal and Clement refer to the brand-new British statutes as part of a “longstanding tradition” and conclude that the framers followed that law because they “would have been intimately familiar with these statutes.” But when one reviews all the relevant American writings of the early period, including congressional debates, well-respected treatises and Supreme Court precedent, it becomes clear that the common-law definition was accepted in the United States, not the newfangled British statutory approach.

Third, Katyal and Clement put much weight on the first U.S. naturalization statute, enacted in 1790. Because it contains the phrase “natural born,” they infer that such citizens must include children born abroad to American parents. The first Congress, however, had no such intent. The debates on the matter reveal that the congressmen were aware that such children were not citizens and had to be naturalized; hence, Congress enacted a statute to provide for them. Moreover, that statute did not say the children were natural born, only that they should “be considered as” such. Finally, as soon as Madison, then a member of Congress, was assigned to redraft the statute in 1795, he deleted the phrase “natural born,” and it has never reappeared in a naturalization statute.

When discussing the meaning of a constitutional term, it is important to go beyond secondary sources and look to the law itself. And on this issue, the law is clear: The framers of the Constitution required the president of the United States to be born in the United States.


I truly feel this is a SCOTUS issue that should put it all to bed once and for all. Lawyers can debate it but the Constitution states that Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790 addresses it to a degree but there needs to be a ruling. A precedent...

To address also Trump saying that the difference in the poll numbers being the reason he is bringing it is true. He is not saying that Cruz is not eligible, he is saying again since he has a greater chance he needs to put this to bed or it could be an issue if Cruz is elected. Trump had this conversation with Cruz early last year and even discussed a VP slot but you do not hear that in the MSM right now.

This is all deflection so you do not read about HIllary and her investigation.
The US MSM is the biggest propaganda outlet in the world.
edit on 01am31amf0000002016-01-15T11:53:35-06:001135 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs




He is not saying that Cruz is not eligible, he is saying again since he has a greater chance he needs to put this to bed or it could be an issue if Cruz is elected


LoL yes he is, Trump isnt bringing this up for Cruz's "own good" lol to make this out as some charity by Trump is hilarious.
The guy is doing this to try and damage Cruz as much as possible and discredit as much as he can because Cruz is his most existential threat at the moment.

Trump has proven himself to be a virtual "waffle house".

Last night exposed again exactly who Trump was and the people didnt like it.




The Naturalization Act of 1790 addresses it to a degree but there needs to be a ruling. A precedent...


There has been See Barack Obama, and Numerous other presidents in the past.

Funny how people want to try and site the constitution that hes not eligible, a great document from out history, yet dont look into the history of our past presidency who were born under the same circumstances........

Please......
edit on 1/15/2016 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22



I'm not going to argue the laws with you on this because I don't have a clue if you are right or wrong. But I would like to know what the location of an American citizens vagina has to do with the citizenship of the child. That just seems like a stupid rule to me.

I am not going to argue it either. That will be for lawyers to do in court.
I am just putting information out there. I heard the radio show last night and heard this woman (a scholar) give her viewpoint and wanted to share it.



My eight month pregnant wife goes to Canada for fries and gravy "cravings of pregnancy ya know", the kid decides to come early and is now not a citizen.

If either one of you are American citizens, your child would be an American citizen.
Ted Cruz is a citizen, that is not in question.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Technically I am not nor never been a US Citizen because Ohio is not and never has been a state by absolute definition. IRS doesn't care nor wants to hear about it. So that makes it good enough, I guess.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


A citizen yes, but not eligible to run for president.
Meaning natural born I guess.

But I don't like anchor babies either.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: butcherguy


A citizen yes, but not eligible to run for president.
Meaning natural born I guess.

But I don't like anchor babies either.

Correct.
I agree with matafuchs post above, the SCOTUS needs to rule on this issue (the meaning of 'natural born') so that we don't have to deal with it any more.
Personally, I think if the person is born of US parents, that is good enough. I can understand restricting 'naturalized' citizens from running for POTUS though.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: butcherguy


A citizen yes, but not eligible to run for president.
Meaning natural born I guess.

But I don't like anchor babies either.


Proof hes not eligible please.........

Also remember the rhetoric is coming from Trump, this man who has no problem lying example last night:




TRUMP, denying he told The New York Times he favored a 45 percent tax on Chinese goods: “That’s wrong. They were wrong.”



really?




THE FACTS: Trump began wriggling out of his idea for a massive tax on Chinese goods soon after he told the paper last week that he would impose one and that “the tax should be 45 percent.”


JUST LAST WEEK




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

This is Trump...

“Sadly, there is no way that Ted Cruz can continue running in the Republican primary unless he can erase doubt on eligibility. Dems will sue,” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning.

That is what he said Wednesday of this month.

He stated in September 2015

“I hear it was checked out by every attorney and every which way and I understand Ted is in fine shape,” Trump told ABC News just before speaking at a Capitol Hill rally blasting the Iran nuclear deal.

In March he said

Well he’s got, you know, a hurdle that nobody else seems to have at this moment," said Trump, who was born in Queens. "It’s a hurdle and somebody could certainly look at it very seriously. He was born in Canada … if you know … and when we all studied our history lessons … you’re supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know how the courts would rule on it. But it’s an additional hurdle that he has that no one else seems to have."

These are all answers to questions. He is not bringing it up but it makes great fodder for the MSM.

What was even better was when Cruz said that Trump may not be eligible. It did make for good TV...


“At the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward,” Cruz said calmly. He had prepared for this moment. After all, he didn’t win national debating championships by happenstance. “But I would note that the birther theories that Donald has been relying on, some of the more extreme ones insist that you must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two parents born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not only would I be disqualified, Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be disqualified and, interestingly enough, Donald J. Trump would be disqualified.”

The moment caught Trump by surprise. “Not me!”

Oh, yes, you. A woman born in 1912, in some voters’ minds, might be the thing that finally disqualifies frontrunner Trump from the most powerful office in the land

“Donald’s mother was born in Scotland. She was naturalized,” Cruz continued with the calm of a former Supreme Court lawyer, which he is.

“But I was born here. Big difference,” Trump said, trying to set this attack back on track and stretching out the adjective as long as he could. “Big” became a very big word. He knew the clip was going to be a cable news favorite.

“On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I’m not going to use the issue of your mother’s birth against you,” Cruz said. It was a fantastic reminder that no white paper, no policy address can compete in the modern era of political campaigns with the snide dagger stabbed just below a rival’s rib cage.


Then Trump destroyed him when he brought up his NY attitude. It backfired for Cruz but was funny...

There needs to be a solid ruling.
edit on 01pm31pmf0000002016-01-15T12:23:17-06:001217 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask


I said in a post on the first page that I don't know if he can or can't run for president.
My point was that if he can't it's a stupid law that needs changed.

Citizen mother has baby outside of the country and the kid can't run.
Mexican woman crosses the border, gives birth and that kid can run.
That's how this situation appears to me. Hopefully I'm wrong.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Trump Destroyed him?

Trump was practically booed off stage on several occassions, trump didnt destroy anyone!

Another edit to note, Trump repeated himself again last night about Cruz, so you can pander if you want but its clear hes pandering. especially after his vice president recant to Cruz not two seconds later.

I cant believe intelligent , or who I thought were intelligent people, are falling for this nonsense birther issue, and Trump as a whole........



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join