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: 6
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Canadian Citizenship Act


F. Dual Citizenship As noted, changes introduced by the 1977 Act permit dual citizenship. Before that time, Canadians who voluntarily acquired another citizenship, except by marriage, lost their Canadian citizenship. Until 1973, the regulations had also required applicants for citizenship to renounce their former citizenship, although whether that renunciation was legally effective depended on the law of the former homeland. When the government asked the Standing Committee to provide advice to the government in 1994, it did not highlight the issue as one that needed addressing, nor has it done so since.


Ted was born in 1970......so looks like it's up to US law of the '70s or it's amendments since. As far as Canada is concerned at the time, Ted's mother renounced her US citizenship once she became a CDN to vote.
edit on 21-2-2016 by Connector because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Connector
As far as Canada is concerned at the time, Ted's mother renounced her US citizenship once she became a CDN to vote.


That has nothing to do with her US citizenship, as other countries cannot make any laws changing the citizenship of another countries citizens..



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Connector
As far as Canada is concerned at the time, Ted's mother renounced her US citizenship once she became a CDN to vote.


That has nothing to do with her US citizenship, as other countries cannot make any laws changing the citizenship of another countries citizens..


Yes, I know, hence my preceding sentence. Your point?




Ted was born in 1970......so looks like it's up to US law of the '70s or it's amendments since. As far as Canada is concerned at the time, Ted's mother renounced her US citizenship once she became a CDN to vote.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

He most probably can. Someone pointed out that the plaintiff is a rabble rouser who has brought these kinds of suits before.
It's a tactic to distract and sway fence sitters.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

If you want to become a citizen it can. Another country can have it's laws state that to become a citizen of Patagonia you must renounce any previous citizenship. Apparently Canada's law at the time of Ted's birth had such a restriction.
They still haven't shown that these supposed voter records with his mother's name on them exists and are legitimate. So it's too soon to be counting anyone out yet.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
If you want to become a citizen it can. Another country can have it's laws state that to become a citizen of Patagonia you must renounce any previous citizenship. Apparently Canada's law at the time of Ted's birth had such a restriction.
They still haven't shown that these supposed voter records with his mother's name on them exists and are legitimate. So it's too soon to be counting anyone out yet.


That is easy to figure out. She is an American today so did she reapply after she renounce? If not then she has always been a US citizen in the eyes of the US Government. Also, was this point of her renouncement before or after Ted was born? It looks like she was there only a few years so one could say she planned to come back to the US rather quickly.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 01:27 AM
link   
The other thing to consider is losing US citizenship now days is about impossible. However the laws at the time were different and might affect his / his moms status. Its like a person murdering someone in the 1970's and not being caught / charged until today.

The laws at the time of the murder, including punishment, are the ones used.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Cruz birthers lose their first (of possibly many) court cases!


Presidential candidates Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio stay on Indiana ballot, commission rules


www.indystar.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
But it isn't .. Arnie can be Governor of California, but he can't be president because he isn't a naturalized citizen. This had been addressed in the past. It seemed to be common knowledge that someone had to be a 'naturalized' citizen. This interpretation however of 'naturalized' is what is in debate.

a reply to: TrueBrit



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
So when is the hearing? I have not seen much about this court decision to hear a case on the news...
It would be amazing and somewhat surreal for the US to have its first Canadian president.
edit on 23/2/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Hope courts clear this up as we have a Canadian born and for lack of better term an anchor baby running for President.

Personal opinion is the "two citizen parents, born on the soil" interpretation.

There was reasoning behind founders being specific regards VP and Presidential office holders be "Natural Born"

Notice lessor office such as Senate and Congress only require "citizenship"

Any other so called modern interpretation invites permutations that become quite silly and no one can convince me that would be anywhere close to logical when considering founders mindsets.

Can one really take a side in this matter that allows a Winston Churchill, Saudi Prince or just a recent immigrant from any other country with one citizen as parent to be VP or President - seriously? ??? That's what you're proposing as founders intent.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
Hope courts clear this up


They will, and Cruz will be eligible!


That's what you're proposing as founders intent.


The founders intent also was women did not vote, slaves were allowed.... so you think they should be allowed still as it was the founders intent!



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Phoenix
Hope courts clear this up


They will, and Cruz will be eligible!


That's what you're proposing as founders intent.


The founders intent also was women did not vote, slaves were allowed.... so you think they should be allowed still as it was the founders intent!


The Constitution was not built on an untouchable island. There are processes intended to both interpret and even change the U.S. Constitution.

If it's the will of the people to define and/or do away with the natural born citizen requirement, I am great with that actually. But that needs to happen through the proper legal processes -- case law, 2/3 majority or Constitution Convention -- but not by subversion.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But that needs to happen through the proper legal processes -- case law, 2/3 majority or Constitution Convention -- but not by subversion.


But as we have all seen birthers are not interested in case law, they tried and twist the constitution and case law to stop a black man becoming President!



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Except no amendment is needed. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to the courts to interpret the law. As natural born citizen is never defined in the Constitution we are reliant on the courts to define it for us. Anytime the courts have used the term natural born citizen it has been equivalent to birthright citizenship.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Except no amendment is needed. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to the courts to interpret the law. As natural born citizen is never defined in the Constitution we are reliant on the courts to define it for us. Anytime the courts have used the term natural born citizen it has been equivalent to birthright citizenship.



But what if 'natural born citizen' is a reference to natural law? I am not so convinced that SCOTUS has the jurisdiction to even opine on the definition if it is a reference to natural law. It would be a matter of challenging them to uphold it, not define it.
edit on 23-2-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But that needs to happen through the proper legal processes -- case law, 2/3 majority or Constitution Convention -- but not by subversion.


But as we have all seen birthers are not interested in case law, they tried and twist the constitution and case law to stop a black man becoming President!


Gross, exploitative comment. Sickens me.
edit on 23-2-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Intriguing that this issue arose from within the GOP itself. It really is a dirty race this election.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

They put mechanism into document to end slavery and provide vote to all, equal app of law etc. Knowing full well if compromise not made no country would form.

They did not with NBC clause.

Good try, no cigar!



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Ceeker63



I do not think the Texans would have elected a Canadian to be their AG.

So you think him being born in Canada doesn't make him a Canadian?


There has been thousands of Americans born on foreign soil.

How many of those thousands ran for President?




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join