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

a reply to: hellobruce

I have never expected to receive any agreement or concessions from those who, apparently, refuse to do any type of diligent research into matters. I am just content to have done what is necessary in order to make an informed decision.
I have been guilty, from time to time, of trying to pass on some of the information from which I have gained some knowledge on various subjects. It is disappointing when I realize these attempts are not accepted, but that's life.

I must say though; if Ted Cruz is elected to the Office of President of the United States, I will feel forced to bring about a class action law suit in an effort to have him removed from office and placed in federal custody on the charges of filing fraudulent information. If he is elected, every American citizen can rightfully claim to be an "effected party" within said action as he would then be in a position for his actions to effect us all.

This would make for a terrible legacy for not only him but, and maybe even worse, for the good people of the United States.

originally posted by: tinymind
I have been guilty, from time to time, of trying to pass on some of the information from which I have gained some knowledge on various subjects. It is disappointing when I realize these attempts are not accepted,

They are not accepted as they are just made up nonsense!

if Ted Cruz is elected to the Office of President of the United States, I will feel forced to bring about a class action law suit in an effort to have him removed from office and placed in federal custody on the charges of filing fraudulent information.

The birfers have tried that against Obama for years, all that happened was they lost every single court case they attempted, over 200 of them, and universally are considered a joke by any thinking person!

Exactly what "fraudulent information" has Cruz filed?

If he is elected, every American citizen can rightfully claim to be an "effected party" within said action as he would then be in a position for his actions to effect us all.

The silly birfers claimed that nonsense against Obama - it will not work!

a reply to: hellobruce

How really sad it is to read such a reply as this.

I guess there are more people out there than I realized, who actually agree with George W bush when he said the U S Constitution "is just a G-d damn piece of paper".

It is just sad.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: hellobruce

How really sad it is to read such a reply as this.

So you are sad that the birfers failed in all their silly lawsuits to throw Obama out....

It is just sad.

What is sad is some people trying to go against the meaning of the constitution, like birfers have!

who actually agree with George W bush when he said the U S Constitution "is just a G-d damn piece of paper".

Do you have a valid source for Bush actually saying that?

a reply to: hellobruce

Yes, it really is sad. Once again my father has been shown to be right.

"It is easier to break into a Brinks truck, than to open a consciously closed mind".

originally posted by: tinymind
"It is easier to break into a Brinks truck, than to open a consciously closed mind".

And as we have seen birfers have a very closed mind!

a reply to: hellobruce

Now you have me curious.

What is a "birfer"?

Could it be you are trying to use the term"birther" and just don't know how to spell it or could this be a wild attempt at being cute?

Oh, you really don't have to reply. I remember some of your other posts and well.... never mind.

a reply to: Informer1958

First thing that came to my mind when reading your OP :

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: hellobruce

Now you have me curious.

What is a "birfer"?

www.urbandictionary.com...

You are wrong, you've been fooled. Obama was born in the US

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: hellobruce

Now you have me curious.

What is a "birfer"?

www.urbandictionary.com...

This just keeps getting sadder and sadder. If I were not laughing so hard, I would likely start to cry.

Or maybe these are the tears from laughter.

I have no idea how, or why, you found or felt he need to bring such a phrase into the conversation.

I con only guess it really is true..." when all else fails - blame it on Obama ".

I don't think it matters to birthers anymore. They are fully convinced no matter the evidence against, that Obama was not born in the US. So what matters about Rubio and Cruz? And that is how it will go in Congress.

a reply to: MOMof3

I don't think any of this posting nor it's replies are about anything the "birthers" had in mind about Obama.
My points all have to do with the U S Constitutional requirements of those who would seek to occupy the Office of the president of these united states.
The Constitution is written in very simple and easily understood wording, with very little ambiguity for those who know how to read. It means what it says and without a Constitutional Amendment it will always be so.
All of the questions raised within this posting can be answered by doing a small amount of research into the source material available at the time of it's inception, which will give a clear insight into the thoughts and thought processes of our founding fathers.

a reply to: tinymind

I believe it will take a supreme court decision to interpret the intent of the constitution. If everyone agreed, there would be no problem since Obama.

a reply to: Informer1958

Wait, so there wasn't a SCOTUS confirmation on this? So no, actually nothing is confirmed and this is just the opinion of some guy who doesn't have a say on Cruz' eligibility? Gotcha.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: tinymind

I believe it will take a supreme court decision to interpret the intent of the constitution. If everyone agreed, there would be no problem since Obama.

Not really correct. The duty of the Supreme Court is to decide on the effects and applications of new laws as to their legality compared to the Constitution. The eligibility of someone seeking an office would largely be a 'political' question which is beyond the scope of the Court. Just like the 2000 decision on the voting in Florida, which was really a state matter anyway.
The eligibility requirements set down in the Constitution do not constitute a legal argument.
The "fact' that Cruz was born in Canada and not on American soil is the determining factor in his eligibility to serve as President or, under the 14th Amendment, Vice president.
He may well be a "citizen by birth" because of his mother's being born here; but this has never been interpreted by anyone as the same as being a "natural born Citizen". This is what is meant by being natural born, thus the distinction in the usage of this term in the Constitution. This is the one and only place this term was used; so do you not think there may have been a reason for making such a stipulation on this one office different from any others which have their requirements shown?

If he can change the circumstances of his birth, then maybe he can change his eligibility.

a reply to: tinymind

I don't believe Cruz is eligible either. I get confused why Obama's citizenship was disputed if it is clear. But, I guess it was because they would not accept his birth certificate.

I looked up other opinions about the Supreme court, and it all comes down to what the Justices believe the constitution says; i.e. Citizens United where allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations was interpreted as free speech.

"But Marshall made a daring move. In a famous court case in 1803, Marbury v. Madison, he wrote the Court's opinion, which declared a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional.
This decision gave the Supreme Court its power of judicial review. Ever since, the highest court has used the power to review the nation's laws and judge whether they were allowed under the Constitution. It has also reviewed the actions of the President."

a reply to: tinymind

I don't believe Cruz is eligible either. I get confused why Obama's citizenship was disputed if it is clear. But, I guess it was because they would not accept his birth certificate.

I looked up other opinions about the Supreme court, and it all comes down to what the Justices believe the constitution says; i.e. Citizens United where allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations was interpreted as free speech.

"But Marshall made a daring move. In a famous court case in 1803, Marbury v. Madison, he wrote the Court's opinion, which declared a law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional.
This decision gave the Supreme Court its power of judicial review. Ever since, the highest court has used the power to review the nation's laws and judge whether they were allowed under the Constitution. It has also reviewed the actions of the President."

a reply to: MOMof3

In my opinion, those who would argue Cruz to be eligible and Obama not, have shown themselves to be simple-minded bigots of the first order.
It is clearly stated that a person has to be born with in the country to hold this office. Obama was accused of being born in Kenya, which is a point to be proven by his accusers. However Cruz has admitted being born in Canada, a point which is not in dispute.
The difference really shows when no proof can be found concerning Obama but is accepted for Cruz. But, the real difference is Cruz is a white guy while Obama is black.
If the same test is to be applied in both cases, race has no place in determining the decision.

originally posted by: tinymind
It is clearly stated that a person has to be born with in the country to hold this office.

-

Wrong again, where exactly is that stated?

As Cruz was born a US citizen, he is a natural born citizen - he was never naturalised.