Ted Cruz is NOT ELIGIBLE to be POTUS, nor is Rubio: Confirmed

a reply to: hellobruce
Reread my post. Of course you overlooked one very important word.I will not banter words.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Informer1958

Scared of Cruz huh?

Cruz is pathological.


He cannot garner respect from his own child who is absolutely repulsed by him... This video is far more telling than any of the rhetoric he spills out.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I agree, but I think that in the end it was a risk they knew they could weather.

originally posted by: Informer1958

As per the definition used by the original framers of the U.S. Constitution, ratified on July 4, 1776, Republican Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz can in no way be eligible to hold the seat of President of the United States and should be considered nothing less than an illegal foreign entity attempting to breach and or ‘salt’ the White House via Canada and or Cuba.

In fact, not only was Rafael Edward Cruz, A.K.A. Ted Cruz, himself born outside of the U.S., but so was his father Rafael Bienvenido, making his campaign one-hundred percent null and void.

Sorry Ted if I crushed your pipe dream.

Indeed one could argue that Cruz doesn’t have to be born inside the U.S. to be president which is technically true, but this instance is only valid if Cruz’s father were to be a “natural born citizen” as laid out by the renown Emer de Vattel in his 1758 book Law of Nations. But that’s just it — Ted Cruz’s father was not a “natural born citizen,” fully disqualifying Cruz to be the next POTUS altogether. Make no mistake, Cruz is not an eligible candidate.


So ATS what is your opinion about this?

They are both eligible. Obama Birthers sounded ridiculous and this does too.

a reply to: Informer1958You forgot one small detail. Ted's mom is the American citizen in the family. So one of his parents is in deed a citzen of the United States. That is all it takes to allow Ted to be a citizen.

a reply to: Informer1958

Both had a parent born in the US.

My bad Rubio was born here.

Either way, both are eligible.

a reply to: hellobruce

From what I have read Illinois and New York, there have been individuals starting the process and the case is on the docket. There is a man in Texas that is still thinking about such as well. So the process is already moving.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: hellobruce

From what I have read Illinois and New York, there have been individuals starting the process and the case is on the docket. There is a man in Texas that is still thinking about such as well. So the process is already moving.

Not asking for his CRBA form however, which is what I said!

How many of these threads are we going to get?

OP posts and leaves. Grabs crap from a website with an agenda.

I won't vote for either of them, but seriously, they aren't dumb enough to run if they had no chance due to citizenship.

C'mon, put in some effort.

originally posted by: TommyD1966
How many of these threads are we going to get?

OP posts and leaves. Grabs crap from a website with an agenda.

Even posts a false title, claiming it is "confirmed", then posts nonsense!

a reply to: Informer1958

Interesting how liberal with interpretations some want to get with OUR founding documents... BOTH parents MUST be CITIZENS for FOURTEEN YEARS. Not ONE... BOTH for at least 14 solid years as a citizen of the USA.

Any other interpretation requires an amendment, or massive coruption.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Interesting how liberal with interpretations some want to get with OUR founding documents... BOTH parents MUST be CITIZENS for FOURTEEN YEARS. Not ONE... BOTH for at least 14 solid years as a citizen of the USA.

Where exactly is that stated in the constitution?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Interesting how liberal with interpretations some want to get with OUR founding documents... BOTH parents MUST be CITIZENS for FOURTEEN YEARS. Not ONE... BOTH for at least 14 solid years as a citizen of the USA.

Where exactly is that stated in the constitution?

Again, it isn't. More wishful thinking.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
It must feel amazing to have silenced all debate with race baiting and ridicule for the last 8 years and only have one opinion to discuss.

That's what i think.

This debate is not worth it. That's what i think, too.

Enjoy the circle jerk.

hillary' fault

I said founding documents... obviously we have a failure to communicate, because either A. Cognitive dissonace B. Willful ignorance or C. Comprehension issues.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

You are wrong AGAIN.

Source 1

The child is a US citizen and that cannot be undone until the child is old enough to convince an embassy official that they wish to renounce and are not under any undue influence. Parents are not allowed to renounce on behalf of their children.

And while any child born in the US is automatically a US citizen, there is in fact one exception--children born to foreign diplomats posted in the USA are NOT considered US citizens, though several have found some gaps in the process and become US citizens (while still holding diplomatic immunity).

Source 2

children of undocumented immigrants who were born in the United States become U.S. citizens automatically. The parent(s)' immigration status is not taken into account. This is due to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads that:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.

Citizenship is the highest status available under the U.S. immigration laws. As a native-born U.S. citizen, the child in question will be granted all of the rights that every other citizen is entitled to, such as the rights to vote, assume public office, and be immune from deportation (removal).

Source 2

Source 2 continues:

Aren't People Trying to Change or Amend This Constitutional Right?

Yes, there are many people within the United States who believe that children of illegal immigrants should not be given U.S. citizenship status. They argue that allowing such children citizenship was not the original intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment (who didn't even address the topic of immigration, because no limits then existed on who could enter the United States in the first place). So far, however, no actual change is in the works.

Don't be one of those people. And stop with the disinfo. Most of your posts belong in Ludicrous Online Lies as it is.

Because - no actual change to the 14th is in the works.
So stop it.

a reply to: yesyesyes



Wait..... Cruz is pathological? Lol compared to TRUMP? And that pic is the best you got?


You could pull 10 lies Trump says within half an hour of any given audio from hm

Give me a break

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
I said founding documents.

Documents you are apparently to list.... funny that!

obviously we have a failure to communicate,

Simply because you refuse to accept you are wrong!

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Wait..... Cruz is pathological? Lol compared to TRUMP?

They are equally pathological.
Both are megalomaniacs.
And Rubio is a teenager in grown-up pants.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Wait..... Cruz is pathological? Lol compared to TRUMP?

They are equally pathological.
Both are megalomaniacs.
And Rubio is a teenager in grown-up pants.

They are? Cruze statements can be backed up by facts

Donald is a perpetual liar

Look them both up for fact checks. Trump isn't even in the ball park