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.

 

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

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

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


I did just that. Trump hasn't a clue.

He's just a bully. He thinks he can say whatever and make it stick. Not when you're running for president and there are fact checkers.

But, as an atheist ---- Cruz? Not a chance.




posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



He thinks he can say whatever and make it stick.

No.
He knows that whatever he says, someone will agree with him.
He also knows that when someone agrees with something someone says, those people well may ignore other things he says.

He is, a populist. He says somethings that everyone wants to hear. Or, if not everyone, a great number of people.

The good news is, populist candidates don't seem to get elected.
The bad news is, a lot of people are dissatisfied about a wide variety of issues.



edit on 2/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

He is, a populist. He says somethings that everyone wants to hear. Or, if not everyone, a great number of people.



Saying what people want to hear can really trip you up when you forgot what you said to the last person.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Pandering is like begging to question to find ones audience... like here's a golden star symbol for your shirt for supporting me like I have any answers or will solve any my starred lil sampling thinks I will... but campaign promises to those pandered rarely get any seat on the cart.

Pandered votes is divisionary, and it's an advertising to a target audience trying to sell you on a product... like try it you may like it but not getting what you want is reality and needing someone to solve all ones personal issues is wishful thinking.

if someone has to beg for answers... politics isn't for such, as the answers in politics should come from the majority. The ejected officials job regardless of backers, party, personal belief etc. is to represent what the majority wants for settling the issues, then meditate the issue of the minority vote through meditation... or else it's ping pong year after year.

Progression means continuing and extending all current policies... is that progress? Not really. It's obvious there needs to be reform to policy... I read somewhere once that the reason Rome fell was the razor of law kept dividing and cutting the masses in the name of progress and not regress and never reformed, because laws kept stacking and stacking.

States rights is supposed to balance this... but some state laws are still separatist, anti this and anti that removing and restricting the very freedom and rights of the individual for the greater good... PACs and it's supporters obviously, gold star corporate interest over the people... which corruption named corporations people instead of the entity they are... hence the (in)corporation or co-operation that they are.

Once and industry is so conglomerated they become a detriment to it's people as a monopolistic tower of babble... that once so risen to such paleful heights? Bursts.

This is why privatization and allowing conglomerates that buy competition forming monopolies destroys... If the market is not monopolized then something like OPEC forms and then through "speculation" rig markets and price fix, making it no longer about supply and demand.

Thusly robbing everyone involved in its trade.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
So ATS what is your opinion about this?


Cruz is eligible, we have another court deciding that!


Cruz ruled eligible for presidency A New Jersey judge has ruled that Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz meets the constitutional requirements to be president and may appear on the state's presidential primary ballot. Judge Jeff Masin ruled on Tuesday that a child of a citizen-father or citizen-mother is "indeed a natural born Citizen within the contemplation of the Constitution".

www.news.com.au...



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
Cruz is eligible, we have another court deciding that!


A judge rendered an opinion (not 'deciding') about eligibility in New Jersey. Now it's up to the New Jersey Sec of State to issue a final ruling.

The whole 'natural born' thing will never be resolved until 1) A new Constitutional amendment is ratified or 2) The US Supreme Court issues a ruling.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I think the best way to determine whether or not Cruz is eligible to become President of the United States is to review his very own definition of what is required and compare this to his qualifications.

A few days ago, I read and saved the following from an article at the link below:

[url=http://intellectualconservative.com...]

I hope it will, in some small way, help to clarify this matter.



The End of the American Presidency

By JB Williams, on March 28th, 2015





In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)

Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”

Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”

Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don’t have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”

Cruz: “I would agree.”

Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”

Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”

Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”

Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”



I think the words from his own mouth tells us a lot about his legal eligibility to become President.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”


Well, the courts say he is very wrong there!


I think the words from his own mouth tells us a lot about his legal eligibility to become President.


No, it just shows that the birfer nonsense is widespread!



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tinymind
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”


Well, the courts say he is very wrong there!


I think the words from his own mouth tells us a lot about his legal eligibility to become President.


No, it just shows that the birfer nonsense is widespread!


Then you are saying Cruz does not know enough about the U S Constitution to be President? Do you think he will have to rely on someones else's interpretations of any documents he may have to read?
I would hope to elect people who can do their own thinking.

You do realize he was talking about Obama at the time, so can we not apply the same standards to anyone seeking the same office?


edit on 13-4-2016 by tinymind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
Then you are saying Cruz does not know enough about the U S Constitution to be President?


Where does the constitution define what "natural born" means?


I would hope to elect people who can do their own thinking.


Well, Trump is also a birfer...



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tinymind
Then you are saying Cruz does not know enough about the U S Constitution to be President?


Where does the constitution define what "natural born" means?


I would hope to elect people who can do their own thinking.


Well, Trump is also a birfer...


I have a better question for you... Why does the Constitution call for a different type of "citizenship" qualification than for any other office holder? Could there be a difference in being a "naturalized citizen" who could serve as a Senator or Representative and a "natural born citizen" who was born in the U S?

There is no way I could care less about Trump.

Oh! By the way. Did you know Ted Cruz has not bothered to become a "naturalized citizen" since living in the U S? This could bring his qualifications to be a Senator into question.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tinymind
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”


Well, the courts say he is very wrong there!


I think the words from his own mouth tells us a lot about his legal eligibility to become President.


No, it just shows that the birfer nonsense is widespread!


Then you are saying Cruz does not know enough about the U S Constitution to be President? Do you think he will have to rely on someones else's interpretations of any documents he may have to read?
I would hope to elect people who can do their own thinking.

You do realize he was talking about Obama at the time, so can we not apply the same standards to anyone seeking the same office?



Presidents have people who have spent their entire lives studying the Constitution that they rely on to make sure they are not doing something a court will over turn later. The vagueness and ambiguity of the Constitution are both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. How one person interprets it is not so important as understanding how it was interpreted in the early days of the founders and by the courts since.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
Did you know Ted Cruz has not bothered to become a "naturalized citizen" since living in the U S? This could bring his qualifications to be a Senator into question.


As he is a naturaL born US citizen, how could he become a naturalised citizen?



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tinymind
Did you know Ted Cruz has not bothered to become a "naturalized citizen" since living in the U S? This could bring his qualifications to be a Senator into question.


As he is a naturaL born US citizen, how could he become a naturalised citizen?


Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”

Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

Many learned people find the terms "natural born" and "native born" to be interchangable with in the context of these documents. Do you see any similarities in the meanings of either?

If this was "his opinion" when talking about someone else, why does the same standard not also apply to himself?

He is also quoted as saying he has not been naturalized and then renounced his citizenship to the country in which he was born. [ Which, by the way, did not recognize any dual citizenship at the time of his birth.] Therefore, he could not make any claim to American citizenship unless his parents filed for such at the nearest American consulate soon after his birth. Regardless of his mother's status. This is in accordance with American law under the Immigration and Naturalization statutes.


I am beginning to think my father was right when he told me... "It is easier to break into a Brinks truck, than to open a consciously closed mind".

edit on 14-4-2016 by tinymind because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2016 by tinymind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: tinymind



Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

You provided no source for that quote.



This is in accordance with American law under the Immigration and Naturalization statutes.
Please cite the pertinent statute which was in effect at the time.

edit on 4/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
He is also quoted as saying he has not been naturalized


Then he is a natural born US citizen!

[ Which, by the way, did not recognize any dual citizenship at the time of his birth.]


Canadian law does not affect someone, like Cruz, being a natural born US citizen.


Regardless of his mother's status. This is in accordance with American law under the Immigration and Naturalization statutes.


Exactly which "American law" would that be?
edit on 16-4-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If you will notice in my reply to this posting, above, I placed a quote from an interview. I believe this interview took place in 2012 before Cruz was elected to the Senate.
In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

In reply to your second question, I submit the following:
In order for Ted Cruz to have obtained recognition of his American citizenship at birth, his mother should have filed in compliance with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”
There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.
First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,” Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?
There are sources, however, who state that Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England. This would mean that when he was brough into the U S in 1974 he entered as an "undocumented alien".

As to the third point which has been raised; that of Cruz meeting the "natural born Citizen" requirement.
Even though this issue has not been before the Supreme court for a case such as this. There have been four United States Supreme Court Decisions all of which affirm that "Natural Born" means "Born inside the nation."
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
There has never been a United States Supreme Court Decision that ruled "Natural Born" as having any other meaning than "born inside the country."
By his own admission, as well as some documentation, Ted Cruz was born in Canada. This will not allow him to have been born on American soil, so he does not meet the definition of "natural born" in any way shape form or fashion. There are three "sub-categories" of citizenship.
1 - A person born with-in a country, whose parents are subject to the laws of that country, is said to be a "native" or "natural born citizen".
2 - A person who is born outside a country, but whose parents are subject to that country, is said to be a citizen by birthright, which is not the same as "natural born" because of the circumstances and location of their birth.
3 -A person who enters, or as a minor is brought, into a country from another, can go through the process of naturalization and become a citizen of that country.
Within the exercising of the rights, privileges and duties of a citizen, these different"sub-categories" should make no distinction in the qualifications of individual citizen themselves. However, in the strictest "legal" sense as pertains to the office which he seeks, there is a significant difference.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

If you will notice in my reply to this posting, above, I placed a quote from an interview. I believe this interview took place in 2012 before Cruz was elected to the Senate.
In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it’s a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”

In reply to your second question, I submit the following:
In order for Ted Cruz to have obtained recognition of his American citizenship at birth, his mother should have filed in compliance with Public Law 414, June 27, 1952, An Act: To revise the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality and for other purposes [H.R. 5678], Title III Nationality and Naturalization, Chapter 1 – Nationality at Birth and by Collective naturalization; Nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; the relevant section being 301 (a) (7):
“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.”
There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.
First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946, also referred to as the “Act of 1947,” Canada did not allow dual citizenship in 1970. The parents would have had to choose at that time between U.S. and Canadian citizenship. Ted Cruz did not renounce his Canadian citizenship until 2014. Was that the choice originally made?
There are sources, however, who state that Cruz’s mother did register his birth with the U.S. consulate and Cruz received a U.S. passport in 1986 ahead of a high school trip to England. This would mean that when he was brough into the U S in 1974 he entered as an "undocumented alien".

As to the third point which has been raised; that of Cruz meeting the "natural born Citizen" requirement.
Even though this issue has not been before the Supreme court for a case such as this. There have been four United States Supreme Court Decisions all of which affirm that "Natural Born" means "Born inside the nation."
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
There has never been a United States Supreme Court Decision that ruled "Natural Born" as having any other meaning than "born inside the country."
By his own admission, as well as some documentation, Ted Cruz was born in Canada. This will not allow him to have been born on American soil, so he does not meet the definition of "natural born" in any way shape form or fashion. There are three "sub-categories" of citizenship.
1 - A person born with-in a country, whose parents are subject to the laws of that country, is said to be a "native" or "natural born citizen".
2 - A person who is born outside a country, but whose parents are subject to that country, is said to be a citizen by birthright, which is not the same as "natural born" because of the circumstances and location of their birth.
3 -A person who enters, or as a minor is brought, into a country from another, can go through the process of naturalization and become a citizen of that country.
Within the exercising of the rights, privileges and duties of a citizen, these different"sub-categories" should make no distinction in the qualifications of individual citizen themselves. However, in the strictest "legal" sense as pertains to the office which he seeks, there is a significant difference.



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
There are two apparent contradictions regarding how and when Ted Cruz obtained US citizenship.
First, according to the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946,


What has that have to do with Cruz being a natural born US citizen? Any law other countries make has no affect on someone being a natural born US citizen.


This would mean that when he was brough into the U S in 1974 he entered as an "undocumented alien".


No, he would have entered as a US citizen...


There are three "sub-categories" of citizenship.


According to who?




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join