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.

 

Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Bad news for Ted Cruz: his eligibility for president is going to court


The Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear a lawsuit on Sen. Ted Cruz's eligibility for president — virtually ensuring that the issue dominates the news in the run-up to the South Carolina primary.

Cruz was born in Canada to a US citizen mother and a noncitizen father. The Constitution requires presidents be "natural-born citizens," but what exactly that requires hasn't been settled in court.

Now, perhaps, it will be. The lawsuit in Illinois aims to resolve the question by challenging Cruz's eligibility for the presidency. It was filed by Lawrence Joyce, an attorney who has told local media that he supports Dr. Ben Carson and has had no connection with the Trump campaign.

"Joyce said his concern is that the eligibility issue lie unresolved during Republican primaries, thus letting the Democrats take advantage of it after a potential Cruz nomination, when it’d be too late," reports The Washington Examiner.

When this question initially came up, the conventional wisdom among constitutional lawyers was that it was a non-issue: Cruz was obviously eligible. But as the debate has heated up among candidates (with Donald Trump, in particular, fanning the flames), it's also begun to heat up among constitutional law scholars.


Click link for article.


This should be interesting... Will the question "what does natural born mean" finally be clarified and what will be the impact of their ruling.

I dont have much else to say so what about you ATS?

Thoughts?

Impact if he is not eligible?
Impact if he is?



The problem: the meaning of "natural-born citizen"

Here is what the Constitution says about who can be president:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

edit on 19-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
IMO, This will be a huge waste of time and money. Cruz was the AG for the State of Texas before going to DC. I do not think the Texans would have elected a Canadian to be their AG. Since the very beginning of the law about natural born citizens take effect. There has been thousands of Americans born on foreign soil. This is no different than any of those other Americans born outside the States.


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

If that idiot from Kenya was eligible I am sure Cruz will be just fine.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63

Cruz and Texas aside the main question is the eligibility and what does natural born mean. Either way it should resolve that question.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Xcathdra

If that idiot from Kenya was eligible I am sure Cruz will be just fine.


I am curious what the difference is that allowed the courts to throw out Obama's eligibility challenges while accepting Cruz's.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Xcathdra

If that idiot from Kenya was eligible I am sure Cruz will be just fine.


I couldnt have said it better myself.....
Use the Obama Gambit
Deflect
Ridicule
Under any circumstances do not release any form of statement

Cruz follows this and nothing wil;l ever come of it.

edit on 19-2-2016 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
I am curious what the difference is that allowed the courts to throw out Obama's eligibility challenges while accepting Cruz's.


Apart from the fact Obama was born in the USA....!
They still may throw it out after hearing it, the courts also heard some challenges against Obama, but birthers lost over 200 court cases against Obama.
edit on 19-2-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

This eligibility issue is hilarious.

If he cannot be president, why the hell is he acceptable as a senator, or to hold any public office? For that matter, why is the president ever anything other than a Native American? Why is there this absurd argument about these matters? He would have been eligible for service in the military, the police force, the intelligence services (mostly because the term intelligence service is a misnomer).

If a person would be eligible to hold a position involving risk to life and limb for their nation, why can they not be seen as fit to hold the presidency? It is a little bit of a strange situation, if you ask me.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

At the federal level the constitution spells out the requirement (oddly enough their are no requirements for the Supreme court).

States have their own eligibility and I have never seen eligibility requirements for their positions other than they must be a US citizen (doesnt matter if they were a citizen of another country and moved to the US).

Michigan had Granholm (Canadian).
California had Schwarzenegger (Austrian).

The only exception was the founding fathers who were grandfathered in since everyone was a subject of the British crown before independence.

The mindset deals with loyalty. Can a person who was a citizen of another country really put the US first and what happens if a conflict between the US and the former country he came from occurs.

The Republic comes first.
edit on 19-2-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The mindset deals with loyalty. Can a person who was a citizen of another country really put the US first and what happens if a conflict between the US and the former country he came from occurs.

The Republic comes first.


Yet there is nothing stopping a dual citizen becoming President...



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Name one.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Remember how there were all those rumors of Obama being born in Kenya.

Remember the White House released his birth certificate (a poorly made Forgery) that said he was born in Hawaii.

Q: Why was there such a need to prove the he was born in Hawaii, that they would risk putting our a forgery?

A: The reason is simple, if Obama was born out side the United States with only one American parent he is not "Natural Born".

There are 3 types of Citizens, Natural Born Citizen, Natural Citizen, Naturalized Citizen.

Natural Born Citizen

There are two way you can be considered a natural born Citizen,

First Way - as long as both parent are American citizen you can be born anywhere, you do not have to be born in the United States, one of its territorial protectorates (Area in question must be considered Sovereign Soil).

Second Way - At least one parent must be a citizen and you must be born in the United States, one of its territorial protectorates (Area in question must be considered Sovereign Soil).

This is why Obama was so desperate to prove he was born in Hawaii, since only one of his parent was an American Citizen.

Natural Citizen

A Natural citizen is someone who was born to one American citizen but was born outside of the United States. These people are Natural US citizen that do not have to go thru naturalization procedures but are not considered Natural Born.

Ted Cruz falls into this category, and while his mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, given the fact that his father was not an American Citizen and that Ted Cruz was born of foreign soil (Canada) he can not be considered a "Natural Born Citizen" and is negligible to be President of the United States (this also applies to Marco Rubio as both his parents were not yet citizens at the time of this birth).

Had Obama not proved he was born in Hawaii, he would have fallen into this category.

Naturalized Citizen

Any person who is not a citizen and wishes to be come one can go thru a process called naturalization and become a citizen after being in the United States (legally) for 7 years.

Many people miss interpreter the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution that states that anyone born with in the confines of the United States is automatically a Citizen, but this is FALSE.

The 13th Amendment was only to apply to the Slaves and their Children that were born here. In the past citizenship was only granted to the children base upon who's jurisdiction the parent fell under.

So if both parent are form Mexico they children fall under the Jurisdiction of Mexico and are considered Mexican Citizens even if they were born in the United States, so since they are not US Citizens, citizenship can not be conferred to the children of to citizens of Mexico.

The law is pretty clear once look how the laws are written and you also have to look at when the laws were passed (like the 13th Amendment) and look at the original intent of the law at the time it was passed.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That should be a requirement of mere citizenship, should it not?

All citizens of a nation should be prepared to abandon any ties they have elsewhere, and pin their banner to the flagpole of thier nation of residence, else they should not be living there in the first place, certainly not as citizens.

Think about this for a moment. Cuba. Many of the people who have come over to the US from Cuba in the last forty years, have been staggeringly happy to arrived, and to have escaped. Many of them had family members who have been killed by the military there, and have no, that is ZERO love for the regime from which they escaped, and have only terrible memories, or memories soured by terror, of the time they spent there.

They then arrived in the US, and learned what life can be like without the constant threat of being murdered for their beliefs or because they protested in the streets. One would be right in thinking, therefore, that the loyalty and dedication shown to the US by a person who sought political asylum from a nation like Cuba, or anywhere else with oppressive regimes, and sought to embrace and love their new nation, would do so with greater commitment and gratitude to that nation, than many so called natural born citizens!



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBRiddle
Remember the White House released his birth certificate (a poorly made Forgery) that said he was born in Hawaii.


What makes you claim it was a forgery? No expert claimed it was a forgery, just a few Obama haters made that claim, without even examining it!


A: The reason is simple, if Obama was born out side the United States with only one American parent he is not "Natural Born".


Wrong actually!


There are 3 types of Citizens, Natural Born Citizen, Natural Citizen, Naturalized Citizen.


Wrong again, only 2 types, natural born and naturalised.


Second Way - At least one parent must be a citizen and you must be born in the United States, one of its territorial protectorates (Area in question must be considered Sovereign Soil).


Still Wrong, you obviously never read what the Supreme court said on the matter.


Many people miss interpreter the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution that states that anyone born with in the confines of the United States is automatically a Citizen, but this is FALSE.


Still still wrong, why do you ignore "United States v. Wong Kim Ark"?


The law is pretty clear


Yes it is, but you seem to ignore the law and post made up birther crap!
edit on 19-2-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Considering what was occurring when the constitution was being written they had a different mindset than today.

As for Cuba what would happen if a Cuban born individual escaped to the US, was allowed to be President who then invades Cuba to liberate his former home he fled?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, these days, it would be less justifiable than it was a few decades ago. Although things are far from perfect, they are an awful lot calmer there than they used to be, and from what I understand, folks are getting on a little better too, so it would be a crapshoot. Let's say instead that a Mexican were to take his or her shot. Let's say that they decided that it would be something they would like to look at, getting Mexico free of cartels?

Well, that would not be something that required a war, and no one has any reasonable argument to make about Mexico as being a threat to anyone, in and of itself. So any suggested war would be shot down by congress, and since presidents cannot declare war without some sort of agreement with congress, they would find it difficult to get that off the ground, unless it was seen as something the powers that really run things, can get behind.

Let's face it, the only governments we know of are puppets for big money, and always have been. Natural born, or from birth nation torn, the president is not the biggest cheese on the block, and so in reality, it makes bugger all difference where he or she hails from. Puppets are puppets, no matter where they are manufactured.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The flaw in your argument is the President is the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. Nothing can stop him from sending troops into Mexico. The ability to declare war resides with Congress as does the purse strings to pay for it but they still could not stop the action.

There is the war powers act however Presidents have ignored it because it places limitations on the commander in chief, which they state is a violation of the constitution.

That leaves impeachment and since congress defines what a high crime and misdemeanor is we could probably get the impeachment. Then the Senate holds the trial and decides if he should be removed.

My guess is it would create a constitutional issue, bringing all 3 branches into the mix. No idea how long that would take so the deed might be done before he could be removed.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well, it would be a mistake to send the US armed forces in to Mexico, or to even try, because around 11% of the people the president would be sending, would be Latino, which means some of them would be Mexican, and I very much doubt that there would be anything less than a service wide mutiny if that happened.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Well he is still technically Canadian. Just because he got rid of the Canadian citizenship wont mean very much. Has anyone seen a American running in a Canadian election or politics yet?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I would also like to see this issue go to court. I think we need a clear definition - right now it is just up in the air. This will actually probably need to see the Supreme Court in the end, but I want to see a clear definition in our day, as the definition of citizen has changed so much over time, that now we need a clear definition of natural born for the presidency.

And this attorney is correct, if this doesn't happen now, what happens if he were to run a national race and this went to court and he lost? It needs to happen now, it needs to happen before we have a sitting president who has to be relieved of his office, before it interrupts a national race.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join