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: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I thought I had heard this guys name before




Poplar Grove lawyer Lawrence Joyce, who had previously represented the President Barack Obama birthers, challenged Cruz to the board, and as expected, the board rejected the challenge:

“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”


He was an Obama Birther, and hes already been rejected once on this Cruz claim
edit on 2/19/2016 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I thought I had heard this guys name before




Poplar Grove lawyer Lawrence Joyce, who had previously represented the President Barack Obama birthers, challenged Cruz to the board, and as expected, the board rejected the challenge:

“The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth,” the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he “did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth.”


He was an Obama Birther, and hes already been rejected once on this Cruz claim


Ah, there it is. I swear, these cases are intentionally set up to fail. It's a very effective strategy to dissuade people from bringing cases with merit.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: JBRiddle

Natural born has been defined. It means you don't have to be naturalized.
Obama who was born in Hawaii a state of our great nation to an American mother. He never had to show a birth certificate to anyone except the vetting committee to begin the process of becoming candidate. He did so to shut his detractors up.
But the certificate was legitimate and only die hard stubborn people are still claiming this forgery nonsense.
But I know there are those who think they're smarter that supreme court judges and they just know (its the layers dude) that the document that fooled everybody else is nothing but a forgery. What an ego.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Thank you hello Bruce. You are exactly right.
All this trying to interpret language when the words are clear.
You are either natural or naturalized.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen was never in doubt as his mother was an American citizen and he was born on US soil - in spite of all the birther lies and innuendo.

Cruz's citizenship is harder to ascertain - he was born in Canada but his mother's US citizenship is in question - she turned up on a Canadian voter record which means she was a Canadian citizen, eligible to vote according to Canada's laws. With most foreign countries, if you become a citizen of that country you automatically renounce your US citizenship, as the loyalty pledge for that other nation stipulates. (There's a handful of nations that don't necessarily require that - and the USA itself does not concern itself with duel citizenship). So that is likely what the "birther argument" regarding Cruz will concern itself with - did mama Cruz renounce her citizenship by 1970 when Ted was born or not? (Even if said renouncement was done automatically by becoming an eligible Canadian citizen.)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBRiddle

Natural born has been defined. It means you don't have to be naturalized.
Obama who was born in Hawaii a state of our great nation to an American mother. He never had to show a birth certificate to anyone except the vetting committee to begin the process of becoming candidate. He did so to shut his detractors up.
But the certificate was legitimate and only die hard stubborn people are still claiming this forgery nonsense.
But I know there are those who think they're smarter that supreme court judges and they just know (its the layers dude) that the document that fooled everybody else is nothing but a forgery. What an ego.


You'll have to forgive me for being one of those who think his birth certificate is fraudulent.

I am not speaking of the long form (and any layers), I am talking about his short form. I say that because I wrote an open records request to the Hawaii Department of Health (several actually confirming their response), in late 2010 and early 2011. I provided them with the photos that Factcheck.org took of the seal impression on the back of the document and requested a copy. They replied that they do not maintain that seal. They provided me with copies of two official seal embossments, but they stated they do not maintain the seal impression photographed by Factcheck.org.

You can chose to think whatever you want about that, but I am satisfied with their response. Obama's short form was not certified with the Hawaii Department of Health's official seal.

Thanks to Donald Trump's sudden interest in seeing in that long form during that period of time, my efforts went pretty much unnoticed.

By the way, there were a few other short forms allegedly belonging to other people that were posted online and bore the same seal impression. I attempted to get permission from one person in particular to allow the Hawaii Department of Health to verify its authenticity. She refused.

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



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TaleDawn

If he renounced his Canadian citizenship he is not technically a Canadian. That's like saying an ex wife is technically still a wife.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Natural simply meant they didn't have to be naturalized. No oath was needed. If you don't have to become a citizen through the naturalization process you already are natural. Simple. Why people choose to complicate this is bewildering.

The whole idiotic question was raised to keep Obama out of the Whitehouse. People desperately seeking a loophole to keep him from being president. Eight years later we see how futile their pathetic attempt was.
Don't underestimate the power of hate. There are some who still want to make this an issue.
It wasn't then and in Cruz' case there is not now.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: eriktheawful

Natural simply meant they didn't have to be naturalized. No oath was needed. If you don't have to become a citizen through the naturalization process you already are natural. Simple. Why people choose to complicate this is bewildering.


I believe they were referring to natural law rather than positive law. And that isn't a complicated thought either.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You don't need to beg my forgiveness. It's not a forgery.
I already said there are those who still believe this.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

You don't need to beg my forgiveness. It's not a forgery.
I already said there are those who still believe this.


And I have good reason to believe it is fraudulent.

Forgery is not the legal term that applies.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The courts don't agree with your interpretation. Just look at Perkins v. Elg for an example.


I don't think any court has the jurisdiction to decide what natural law is. On this one issue, the drafters deferred to 'natural law.'

As soon as a court or legislative body tries(d) to give the term a legal definition, it's no longer 'natural law' and becomes positive law.

Just my take on it.



It was given a legal definition the moment it was put in the constitution.

For a period context of "natural born"....

Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.



Tom Paine on monarchs of duel nationality....In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.


Tom Paine Rights of Man-On Constitutions-Chapter 4



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The courts don't agree with your interpretation. Just look at Perkins v. Elg for an example.


I don't think any court has the jurisdiction to decide what natural law is. On this one issue, the drafters deferred to 'natural law.'

As soon as a court or legislative body tries(d) to give the term a legal definition, it's no longer 'natural law' and becomes positive law.

Just my take on it.



It was given a legal definition the moment it was put in the constitution.

For a period context of "natural born"....

Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just two years after the ratification of the Constitution. If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.



Tom Paine on monarchs of duel nationality....In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.


Tom Paine Rights of Man-On Constitutions-Chapter 4



There is no definition in the U.S. Constitution. Just the term.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually, that's just your opinion.

Unless of course you have documentation or letters from the Framers themselves explaining what they meant by "Natural".

You could be right. But then....you might be wrong.

For example: the early European settlers used to refer to the native Americans as "Uncivilized Naturals". That usage is quite clear, saying that those who were from here, are part of here and are "natural".

Less than 200 years later you have the words "Natural Born Citizen"....that's quite suggestive considering one way the word was used in the past from them. Natural means part of the normal environment (IE actually born here on US soil).

Having the phrase determined by a court would greatly simplify things. It would no longer be an opinion of someone or group of someones. It would be defined and legally binding.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
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.


All those other positions do not hold the fate of a country in their hands. And also the higher positions you mentioned, no doubt, did not vet him to the level necessary(a common problem these days! Seems as though people married to important CEO's get a pass) Someone born of a nation would have the greatest sense of allegiance, the thought being. Our own prez is a perfect example, in my opinion.Hhe has shown strong allegiance to the muslim world, as he was raised in his informative years as a muslim in Indonesia. Now if he had really been raised in America and of American values, I think we might have had an entirely different type of prez today.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.


No one really wants to know why they used that term. It was clearly part of the protective language of the constitution that was employed to guard the republic from the historical European examples of mixed citizenship in positions of power.

That door was walled up for a good reason. We have been watching it being slowly torn down. The definition of citizen in this country must be changed and warped in order for it to one day meet the legal language to come under the subjugation of outside powers.

They even have the Pope now coming to Juarez and symbolically challenging our borders, a presidential candidate and anyone here that agrees with him.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: Sillyolme

Actually, that's just your opinion.

Unless of course you have documentation or letters from the Framers themselves explaining what they meant by "Natural".





It could be well argued that the lack of explanation of the term anywhere in the writings points to the fact that it needed no explanation. There was certainly no explanation needed as to why the office was given restrictive qualifications.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The "natural born citizen" clause was put in because of the prejudice in those days against people born by Caesarian section. Something about being from the womb untimely ripped....



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:52 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.


I agree, Obama's is a much more complicated case, but I guess that shows how liberal the court actually is. One of my children was born in Japan, so what, he was an american the day he was born. I guess all pregnant women should not leave the county in case of an early birth...lol this is stupid.

A natural born citizen is where a citizen of this country gives birth to you, not that she needs American dirt under her feet, otherwise it would have also said born on american soil.

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



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It'd be funny if Cruz showed up with a Hawaiian birth certificate.




new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join