Breaking: VT Judge may have to toss Cruz, Rubio & Jindal off of state's ballot

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

If the term is meant to protect the nation from foreign influence, how can someone born in Hawaii -- which was illegally annexed and in violation of an international treaty -- be considered eligible unless you believe America is the owner of the world? There are Hawaiian royals that, to this day, completely decry what was done to their nation and monarchy.

A few there may 'decry' it. However, it is a US state. Barack Obama, as far as I know, has no ties to any 'kingdom' organizations there. There are a lot of places in the world where past monarchies were overthrown or replaced by governments.

And that is why the term is and should be broadly defined. With the native Hawaiian tradition of hanai, we would never know who actually has ties to the kingdom.

Also, the movement to return to Hawaii its independence is VERY LARGE. It's not just a few people.

If you take a liberal position -- and I am just assuming you do, correct me if I am wrong -- it should outrage you how Queen Liliuokalani was criminally dethroned. The debate still exists and the U.S. government has acknowledged it was wrong AND HAS APOLOGIZED.

I consider myself a liberal and a progressive and it is hard to stomach, I can assure you. The term 'natural born citizen' is unique to each and every person.

Hawaii overthrown in a bloodless coup

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

If the term is meant to protect the nation from foreign influence, how can someone born in Hawaii -- which was illegally annexed and in violation of an international treaty -- be considered eligible unless you believe America is the owner of the world? There are Hawaiian royals that, to this day, completely decry what was done to their nation and monarchy.

A few there may 'decry' it. However, it is a US state. Barack Obama, as far as I know, has no ties to any 'kingdom' organizations there. There are a lot of places in the world where past monarchies were overthrown or replaced by governments.

And that is why the term is and should be broadly defined. With the native Hawaiian tradition of hanai, we would never know who actually has ties to the kingdom.

Also, the movement to return to Hawaii its independence is VERY LARGE. It's not just a few people.

If you take a liberal position -- and I am just assuming you do, correct me if I am wrong -- it should outrage you how Queen
Liliuokalani was criminally dethroned.

I consider myself a liberal and a progressive and it is hard to stomach, I can assure you. The term 'natural born citizen' is unique to each and every person.

Hawaii overthrown in a blodless coup

It has a sad history. I have read it. It has zero bearing on the OP though.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

If the term is meant to protect the nation from foreign influence, how can someone born in Hawaii -- which was illegally annexed and in violation of an international treaty -- be considered eligible unless you believe America is the owner of the world? There are Hawaiian royals that, to this day, completely decry what was done to their nation and monarchy.

A few there may 'decry' it. However, it is a US state. Barack Obama, as far as I know, has no ties to any 'kingdom' organizations there. There are a lot of places in the world where past monarchies were overthrown or replaced by governments.

And that is why the term is and should be broadly defined. With the native Hawaiian tradition of hanai, we would never know who actually has ties to the kingdom.

Also, the movement to return to Hawaii its independence is VERY LARGE. It's not just a few people.

If you take a liberal position -- and I am just assuming you do, correct me if I am wrong -- it should outrage you how Queen
Liliuokalani was criminally dethroned.

I consider myself a liberal and a progressive and it is hard to stomach, I can assure you. The term 'natural born citizen' is unique to each and every person.

Hawaii overthrown in a blodless coup

It has a sad history. I have read it. It has zero bearing on the OP though.

I disagree, but that is ok. No need to convince one another. I believe it is relevant when we, as a nation, piss off other nations and then decide to elect individuals from those nations to the highest office in the land.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

If the term is meant to protect the nation from foreign influence, how can someone born in Hawaii -- which was illegally annexed and in violation of an international treaty -- be considered eligible unless you believe America is the owner of the world? There are Hawaiian royals that, to this day, completely decry what was done to their nation and monarchy.

A few there may 'decry' it. However, it is a US state. Barack Obama, as far as I know, has no ties to any 'kingdom' organizations there. There are a lot of places in the world where past monarchies were overthrown or replaced by governments.

And that is why the term is and should be broadly defined. With the native Hawaiian tradition of hanai, we would never know who actually has ties to the kingdom.

Also, the movement to return to Hawaii its independence is VERY LARGE. It's not just a few people.

If you take a liberal position -- and I am just assuming you do, correct me if I am wrong -- it should outrage you how Queen
Liliuokalani was criminally dethroned.

I consider myself a liberal and a progressive and it is hard to stomach, I can assure you. The term 'natural born citizen' is unique to each and every person.

Hawaii overthrown in a blodless coup

It has a sad history. I have read it. It has zero bearing on the OP though.

I disagree, but that is ok. No need to convince one another. I believe it is relevant when we, as a nation, piss off other nations and then decide to elect individuals from those nations to the highest office in the land.

If you are saying Obama is a secret spy for Hawaii and has nefarious purposes towards the US on behalf of Hawaii....I got nothin'. I think this is the end of this thread for me. Thanks for the debate.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: reldra
I know there was another with a mother born in France with French citizenship, I just can;t find it now.

I am fairly certain that foreign women marrying men who were citizens automatically received the franchise at that time.

I'm not sure, can't find it. But I am confused how some people still, today, point out that both parents must be US citizens.

This 'natural born; clause derives from England, which is as follows:

source for below : source

"Rationale[edit]
The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

If the term is meant to protect the nation from foreign influence, how can someone born in Hawaii -- which was illegally annexed and in violation of an international treaty -- be considered eligible unless you believe America is the owner of the world? There are Hawaiian royals that, to this day, completely decry what was done to their nation and monarchy.

A few there may 'decry' it. However, it is a US state. Barack Obama, as far as I know, has no ties to any 'kingdom' organizations there. There are a lot of places in the world where past monarchies were overthrown or replaced by governments.

And that is why the term is and should be broadly defined. With the native Hawaiian tradition of hanai, we would never know who actually has ties to the kingdom.

Also, the movement to return to Hawaii its independence is VERY LARGE. It's not just a few people.

If you take a liberal position -- and I am just assuming you do, correct me if I am wrong -- it should outrage you how Queen
Liliuokalani was criminally dethroned.

I consider myself a liberal and a progressive and it is hard to stomach, I can assure you. The term 'natural born citizen' is unique to each and every person.

Hawaii overthrown in a blodless coup

It has a sad history. I have read it. It has zero bearing on the OP though.

I disagree, but that is ok. No need to convince one another. I believe it is relevant when we, as a nation, piss off other nations and then decide to elect individuals from those nations to the highest office in the land.

If you are saying Obama is a secret spy for Hawaii and has nefarious purposes towards the US on behalf of Hawaii....I got nothin'. I think this is the end of this thread for me. Thanks for the debate.

I am not saying that, at all. But if you have decided that's what I meant, and bailed because you feel you answered the question for me, I don't know why you even asked it.

I am saying the door was opened and perhaps we should close it again -- and everyone has a right to be heard on the issue.

originally posted by: Boadicea
The defendants did not file a response by the deadline. Hence, the judge may now rule in favor of the plaintiff by default, which would keep Cruz and Rubio's name off the ballot.

More likely the judge will rule that they remain on the ballot.

And for what it's worth, these plaintiffs challenging today's Republican candidates also challenged Obama's candidacy.

Cases which they also lost....

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Halfswede
Had a math PhD. friend joke one day that someone should claim the "natural born" wording would preclude those born by cesarean or induced by drugs from running as well.

LOL! Good he had a sense of humor about it!

There really should be a simple background check that covers this for every candidate and put any of this nonsense to rest up front.

That ^^^ and official definitive criteria established for exactly what a natural born citizen is. This shouldn't be allowed to be a political football with so much at stake -- and at risk!

There is enough precedent to show that all of these named are natural born citizens. There is no longer an argument.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree; a "natural born citizen" is whatever we make it, but that has yet to be definitively specified by any authority. As such, it is still subject to interpretation. Unless and until there is such a authoritative definition, there will be people who will argue the definition.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Any other candidate would have been done and dusted by now, and all you have to do is look at the burning shards of the Carson campaign at the moment to see what that can be like.

Indeed! I never understood the level of support Carson received to begin with -- except that he was an "outsider." But he never fit the conservative bill... or even the TEA party bill. My husband said I was over-thinking it. Maybe.

Cruz, on the other hand, fits like a glove for many, and I'm actually surprised he hasn't gotten more support. But like you said, he's playing his cards to pick up Trump's supporters when/if he implodes. I was surprised that Trump attacked Cruz' religion, but I also think Cruz really blew it with his "raise the body of Christ" comment. The next several weeks will be crazy. That's the only prediction/expectation I have!

a reply to: WeRpeons

Ted Cruz was also a birther. Now he's going to have to defend his birth status. It's funny how his attack on Obama's birth origin is now coming around and biting him in the @ss! Poor Ted.

Maybe... maybe not.

I don't think the suit was brought against Cruz and Rubio themselves; but the Vermont authorities responsible for qualifying candidates for the ballot. So Cruz doesn't have to defend anything. Just watch and wait for what the courts and authorities do.

Also, given the Republican refusal to even address Obama's "natural born citizen" status, and given the many many attempts by Republicans (particularly Dana Rohrabacher) to change the natural born citizen requirement in the decades prior to Obama, I don't think any Republicans were really "Birthers." They may have used it as a convenient excuse to cast doubt on Obama's legitimacy (with some success), but I don't think any of them -- including Cruz -- really have any respect for the standard. I've heard a few Birthers say "if Obama can get away with it then so can Cruz" -- or something to that effect anyway.

a reply to: hellobruce

More likely the judge will rule that they remain on the ballot.

I expect you're right, based on lack of standing to bring the suit... just like Obama and just like McCain.

Cases which they also lost....

Yup. So what did they expect to be different this time? Was this just an exercise in futility? Or do they have an underlying motive? That's what I don't get.

a reply to: reldra

Not just reckless, but I don't think what the founding fathers intended be done in these cases. Unless some guy, gets on a plane from say, Italy, today. Isn't a citizen, has no parents that are citizens and then he starts a campaign for the presidency and no one steps in to stop him. Some sort of uprising should then occur.

I would think an argument would be made that the voters should be allowed to decide... And of course there would someone(s) supporting him! I can't see revolt over running -- winning, maybe. But if the Birthers didn't revolt, then I can't see others revolting.

originally posted by: AnonnieMuss
a reply to: reldra

There is reason to pick it apart. Natural law can be nebulous. It warrants universal discussion.

I have to disagree here. Natural law is quite simple: That which comes from nature, not man. And natural rights are self-evident: If you can do it for yourself by yourself and/or with consenting adults, then it's a natural right.

"Citizenship" is created by man, for man's purposes. But for these purposes, the "natural" citizen is one who was born a citizen; and according to our laws, anyone born here or born of a citizen is "naturally" a citizen.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And so it begins

Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make the Texas senator vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.”

Trump added, “I’d hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport.”

Source

Cruz was American at Birth, thanks to the 14th Amendment, which he wants to cancel.

It's amazing that Republican voters would support someone born in Canada who was only American thanks to their parentage.

It's always been commonly accepted, until Ted Cruz came along, that "Natural Born American" meant that you were born INSIDE the United States, not that you were American at Birth. A "naturalized American" was always accepted as someone who was born OUTSIDE the USA but became a citizen through some other means.

John McCain was born on Guam, but was an American citizen ONLY because he was born on an American military base, which thanks to diplomatic niceties is considered American soil. John McCain was NOT born in the United States, really.

Not sure what the challenge is to Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio though. Both were born in the United States so would have citizenship automatically, whether their parents were in the USA legally or not.

The US Supreme Court has NEVER heard a case about this. It's high time it was decided once and for all, but it's unlikely to happen before the 2016 vote.

The same rule that gives Ted Cruz American citizenship at birth (An American mother) would also give Barack Obama US citizenship at Birth, even if he were born in Kenya, which makes all the birther movement even more ridiculous.

Jindahl quit long ago, I don't think he is worried about it.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Cruz was American at Birth, thanks to the 14th Amendment, which he wants to cancel.

Repeal... not "cancel."

And I believe Cruz was born in Canada, so the 14th Amendment would not cover Cruz, which "naturalized" the slaves born in the USA.

It's always been commonly accepted, until Ted Cruz came along, that "Natural Born American" meant that you were born INSIDE the United States, not that you were American at Birth. A "naturalized American" was always accepted as someone who was born OUTSIDE the USA but became a citizen through some other means.

Not really; certainly not "always" and not "commonly" accepted. There have been various interpretations/definitions involving various combinations of "jus soli" and "jus sanguinis." I believe the first congressional efforts to define citizenship and/or natural born citizenship was in 1796. Many have challenged/questioned the automatic citizenship granted by the 14th amendment, including for immigration purposes (especially illegal immigration). There have also been various efforts in congress to define/redefine natural born citizen. And, of course, before Cruz, the Birthers certainly questioned Obama's naturalized birth right not just because of his suspected Kenya birth, but because his father was never a citizen and never wanted to be a citizen and never tried to be a citizen.

John McCain was born on Guam, but was an American citizen ONLY because he was born on an American military base, which thanks to diplomatic niceties is considered American soil. John McCain was NOT born in the United States, really.

John McCain was born in Panama, and it may or may not have been on a military base. However, John McCain was born to natural born citizens of the USA while his father was stationed in Panama in service to his country as a naval officer. I have never seen any authority even suggest that the children born of any citizen in a foreign land -- much less active military serving their nation -- are anything but natural born citizens. There is no question that McCain is a natural born citizen.

Not sure what the challenge is to Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio though. Both were born in the United States so would have citizenship automatically, whether their parents were in the USA legally or not.

Basically the same as everyone who challenges the automatic birth right granted by the 14th amendment.

The US Supreme Court has NEVER heard a case about this. It's high time it was decided once and for all, but it's unlikely to happen before the 2016 vote.

Yes, it is high time... but I doubt the Supreme Court will ever accept the case.

The same rule that gives Ted Cruz American citizenship at birth (An American mother) would also give Barack Obama US citizenship at Birth, even if he were born in Kenya, which makes all the birther movement even more ridiculous.

So you and many others say. But until a court so rules, it's still subject to interpretation -- and disagreement.

Cruz Citizenship Timeline (documented)

1970 # Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian immigration and naturalization laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz.

If this is true, then not just Cruz' father, but Cruz' mother was also a Canadian citizen at his birth; could she legally pass on her USA citizenship if she had applied for and been granted Canadian citizenship? Would she have to renounce her birth citizenship to accept Canadian citizenship? For that matter, upon returning to the USA, would she have to take any official action to resume her USA citizenship? Is this another loophole in the law? I'm not even sure where to find the answers

Congressman Readies Ted Cruz Eligibility Lawsuit With Eye on Mom

A Florida Democrat and some Obama "birthers" agree about Cruz.

Rep Alan Grayson (D-Fl) is also questioning the citizenship of Cruz' mother, and if she was granted Canadian citizenship, thus giving up her USA citizenship. He also says there is no record of Mrs. Cruz' birth in Delaware.

Grayson says Wilson may have forfeited her U.S. citizenship by taking a Canadian oath of citizenship, and that he’s seen no evidence she actually was born in the U.S.

Grayson says “if his mother, who clearly worked in Canada for years and years, did so while becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath, which is how you do it in Canada, she lost her citizenship by U.S. law, specifically Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

originally posted by: Boadicea
Congressman Readies Ted Cruz Eligibility Lawsuit With Eye on Mom

A Florida Democrat and some Obama "birthers" agree about Cruz.

Rep Alan Grayson (D-Fl) is also questioning the citizenship of Cruz' mother, and if she was granted Canadian citizenship, thus giving up her USA citizenship. He also says there is no record of Mrs. Cruz' birth in Delaware.

Grayson says Wilson may have forfeited her U.S. citizenship by taking a Canadian oath of citizenship, and that he’s seen no evidence she actually was born in the U.S.

Grayson says “if his mother, who clearly worked in Canada for years and years, did so while becoming a Canadian citizen and taking an oath, which is how you do it in Canada, she lost her citizenship by U.S. law, specifically Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

If this is true then it's also freaking hilarious.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

If this is true then it's also freaking hilarious.

Right???

I'm just shaking my head here. I looked for some quotes from Cruz, and he describes his mother as having "birthright" citizenship, thereby granting him "birthright" citizenship. Kinda parsing words there! I really hope his mother's citizenship status at the time of his birth is proven one way or another... I just want to see the response -- by Cruz supporters and the courts -- if it's shown she did voluntarily renounced her citizenship.